Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

People still think climate change is a hoax?

Alright, the world has existed for millions of years and humans have lived on it for millennia also. But the drastic changes happening in the natural world around us is alarming.

How do these deniers not see it?

What d'yall think? Is the whole climate change debate a bogeyman unleashed for I don't know what reasons.

Or is it something real that we all are responsible for?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Well, you've now had over 200 replies and what they show is a bitter divide between those who do accept the climate is changing by or under human influence, and understand it; and people who not only do not believe it but will not try to understand it.


The idea is that it is some sort of "hoax" (i.e. a gigantic international lie by unidentified people for no discernible purpose and benefit) is untenable on simple logic.

Especially since many of those countries are otherwise generally hostile to each other, or at least self-centred, so hardly likely to co-operate in creating and maintaining a massive lie (the "hoax" as you say some call it). Lies are very hard to maintain even by individuals, and lies eventually break, so it would be impossible to create and maintain an enormous lie at State level even between friendly nations.

Calling such a lie a "hoax" is a bit euphemistic. A hoax is a lie by definition.

Instead, the increasingly weak lies are those of leaders and their followers of a very few, lone, isolationist governments who want to deny the fact and reasons for the climate's artificial changes, for purely personal or political/economic reasons.

.....

The reason for recognising we are changing the climate and trying to minimise the damage - which will be hard for us all - is obvious. The consequences of our ameliorating actions will not be easy or comfortable and I doubt anyone thinks they will be; but the consequences of inaction would be even worse.

The reasons some so desperately to keep calling it a "hoax" or "lie" are opaque, especially if they can only stoop to insults rather than honestly stating their rationale. Some seem genuinely confused by reading about palaeo-climates without really understanding the subject. Others perhaps realise the implications and (understandably) fear them so try to deny the fact as if that will make it go away. Still others may have political or other interests in denying anthropogenic climate-change - or even just climate-change.**


I think the major problem is that one or two major countries, but by no means all, have allowed the matter to become a very divisive but very shallow, domestic political spat whereas of course, it transcends all ideologies, creeds and cultures, and affects everyone on the planet. Otherwise, even in multi-party democracies, the matter is largely agreed across the board and the parties differ only on policy details.

...

What would happen if we carried on as if nothing is happening? Well apart from the large areas of the world becoming inhospitably arid and many coastal areas being inundated.... Eventually we will run out of coal and oil, but what do do then?

.....

We are the last major species to have evolved on Earth - our genus is only about 4M years old, our species <1M - yet has become the most dangerous and destructive of all animals, ultimately to ourselves. We won't destroy the planet (that "save the planet" slogan is plain silly), nor drive ourselves into extinction; but we are certainly heading for terrible times ahead, by our own acts.

We started to recognise the problems more than 100 years ago but have only just started to address them.. I think that was largely because much of the 20C clung to a naive assumption that Science and Engineering would solve everything. They could help us now, and are trying to; but not alone and not as we had thought for about 200 years, by ever-bigger, ever-more, so increasing profligacy of exhaustible natural resources.

...

What would happen if we carried on as if nothing is happening?

Well apart from large areas of the world becoming inhospitably arid and many coastal low-lands becoming inundated, with dreadful social damage....

Eventually we will run out of coal and oil, and some metal ores, but what then?

Never mind, it will be for our descendants to face.

.........

*The geologists are studying evidence in sediments, ice-cores etc. of the Quaternary climate oscillations to establish what the climate did in the past couple of million years when Nature had it all to herself. This allows determining what we could expect if humanity had not spent the last couple of thousand years messing it up at an ever-increasing rate. And also what to expect as a result of our interference, on temperatures, ice-covers and sea-levels.


**Interestingly, a president of one major nation tried to deny man-made climate-change for direct, domestic political purposes; yet also hinted at wanting his nation to take over another country's Arctic territory that could well lose its ice-sheet by the climate warming. He was told "certainly not", of course; but it does not take much thinking to comprehend his duplicity.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ArishMell So you can't remember last year but you think the weather is warming. Too funny. I have been around for almost as long as you have and the one thing I remember from all the summers and winters is that there is no trend either way. Some years are hotter and some are colder. Last winter we had very little snow and quite mild temperatures. However as the old times used to say "No winter - no summer" and this summer has been very cool. The year will be average. We are still setting record highs and lows with regularity. While the winter was on average warmer than normal on any particular day it was extremely cold. Temperature's getting below what the thermometers were registering. When the thermometer says -50C its cold. Is that actually how cold it was? Don't know. The last reading on the thermometer is -50.
Fairydust · F
[media=https://youtu.be/V6EQHNz9Yho]
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Here is a Paul Krugman column I saved about the question.

Why Republicans Turned Against the Environment
Aug. 15, 2022, By Paul Krugman, Opinion Columnist

In 1990 Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act of 1970, among other things taking action against acid rain, urban smog and ozone.

The legislation was highly successful, greatly reducing pollution at far lower cost than business interest groups had predicted. I sometimes see people trying to use acid rain as an example of environmental alarmism — hey, it was a big issue in the 1980s, but now hardly anyone talks about it. But the reason we don’t talk about it is that policy largely solved the problem.

What’s really striking from today’s perspective, however, is the fact that the 1990 legislation passed Congress with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities. Among those voting Yea was a first-term senator from Kentucky named Mitch McConnell.

That was then. This is now: The Inflation Reduction Act — which, despite its name, is mainly a climate bill with a side helping of health reform — didn’t receive a single Republican vote. Now, the I.R.A. isn’t a leftist plan to insert Big Government into everyone’s lives: It doesn’t coerce Americans into going green; it relies on subsidies to promote low-emission technologies, probably creating many new jobs. So why the scorched-earth G.O.P. opposition?

The immediate answer is that the Republican Party has turned strongly anti-environmental over time. But why?

Surveys from the Pew Research Center show the widening partisan divide over environmental policy. In the 1990s self-identified Republicans and Democrats weren’t that different in their environmental views: Republicans were less likely than Democrats to say that we should do whatever it takes to protect the environment, more likely to say that environmental regulation hurts the economy, but the gaps were relatively modest.

Since then, however, these gaps have widened into chasms, and not in a symmetrical way: Democrats have become somewhat more supportive of environmental action, but Republicans have become much less supportive.

Most of the divergence is fairly recent, having taken place since around 2008. I can’t help pointing out that Republican belief that environmental protection hurts the economy soared precisely during the period when revolutionary technological progress in renewable energy was making emissions reductions cheaper than ever before.

Republican voters may be taking their cues from politicians and media figures. So why have conservative opinion leaders turned anti-environment?

It’s not about belief in free markets and opposition to government intervention. One of the most striking aspects of recent energy disputes is the extent to which Republicans have tried to use the power of the state to promote polluting energy sources even when the private sector prefers alternatives. The Trump administration tried, unsuccessfully, to force electric utilities to keep burning coal even when other power sources were cheaper. Currently, as The Times has reported, many Republican state treasurers are trying to punish banks and other companies seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What about the cynical view that the G.O.P. is simply in the pocket of fossil fuel interests? Obviously money talks, and contributions from coal and, to a lesser extent, oil and gas do flow mainly to Republicans. But the Inflation Reduction Act — which will open up many business opportunities — was endorsed by a number of large corporations, including energy companies like BP and Shell. Republicans were unmoved.

What has happened, I’d argue, is that environmental policy has been caught up in the culture war — which is, in turn, largely driven by issues of race and ethnicity. This, I suspect, is why the partisan divide on the environment widened so much after America elected its first Black president.

One especially notable aspect of The Times’s investigative report on state treasurers’ punishing corporations seeking to limit greenhouse gas emissions is the way these officials condemn such corporations as “woke.”

Wokeness normally means talking about racial and social justice. On the right — which is increasingly defined by attempts to limit the rights of Americans who aren’t straight white Christians — it has become a term of abuse. Teaching students about the role of racism in American history is bad because it’s woke. But so, apparently, are many other things, like Cracker Barrel offering meatless sausage and being concerned about climate change.

This may not make much sense intellectually, but you can see how it works emotionally. Who tends to worry about the environment? Often, people who also worry about social justice — either that, or global elites. (Climate science is very much a global enterprise.)

Even Republicans who have to know better won’t break with the party’s anti-science position. As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had a decent environmental record; yet he joined every other Republican member of Congress in voting against the I.R.A.

What this means is that those people hoping for bipartisan efforts on climate are probably deluding themselves. Environmental protection is now part of the culture war, and neither policy details nor rational argument matters.





Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
They do, or can, see it; but do not want to.

Each will have his or her own reasons, but few if any say what those are. Instead they tend just to go on the offensive, calling climate change a hoax or lie.

Or they do not deny the climate is changing but attempt to use natural changes such as the Ice Age's fluctuations to explain it, without understanding it.

However, I think two possible reasons for still trying to deny that something is happening and human actions are very much part of it, are -

- strong political or commercial interests,

- understandable fears of reductions in their own very comfortable, profligate private lives.

I wonder too, if some who flatly deny anthropogenic climate change might do so simply because they genuinely find anything scientific difficult to grasp; but rather than have the courage and honesty to seek explanations they can comprehend, they try feebly to hide their ignorance by simply attacking science. (Very ironically too, if via the Internet.)
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Fairydust don't want to believe what they see?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Ynotisay They "climate-change deniers" don't believe the climate is warming because they do not want to believe it.

Some are so ignorant and gullible they would believe being told the "Bermuda Triangle" casualties were victims of a "Deep State" conspiracy to push them off the edge of the "Flat Earth", but I think a lot of others are too intelligent for that.

Instead they refuse to accept what is happening because it does not suit them.
Fairydust · F
@ArishMell

Lol 😂 ignorance is bliss 💅🏻


QueenOfZaun · 26-30, F
It’s embarrassing that we’re still having this argument.

Carbon dioxide traps heat. We know this and have known this with absolute certainty for nearly eighty years now.

Anyone arguing against this is akin to flat earthers and people who think we faked the moon landings.

You’re not being a healthy skeptic; you’re denying the evidence of a proven observable fact.

The people who deny these facts simply don’t understand the science of it.

I once argued with someone who thought that NASA was faking the existence of black holes. I presented him several mathematical equations that were used in determining the existence of black holes and asked him to point out where the variables went wrong. And he didn’t know where to start.

And that’s the problem. They don’t believe in the issue because they refuse to understand the issue. You can’t educate people who don’t want to learn.
SW-User
SandWitch · 26-30, F
@SW-User
No, no one is triggered, it's just that you have never learned your place in life, that's all!

Unfortunately, you had to come here to have this brought to your attention.
SW-User
@SandWitch

Here’s what to do:

Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Only in America is climate change really such a partisan issue. Only in America, is climate change denial a mainstream position. Three reasons:.

1) The Republican Party is heavily backed by the fossil-fuel industry. That industry (see the Koch brothers) also fund think tanks and propaganda machines to push the climate change denial position.

2) The US right is heavily. Into it's conspiracy theories. They see big government and academia as a hoax so this makes it plausible to them that 98% of climate scientists may be wrong or lying.

3) If the climate scientists are right (and they are) then the most obvious policy implications of this involve either major lifestyle changes or more government spending.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Burnley123 Though I am not very Right-leaning even in UK terms, and it's not often I agree with your political views, I do here!

The USA tends to either commercialise or politicise - or both - everything to the nth degree, and seems to invent more conspiracy fantasies than everyone else put together. Even so there may well be a lot of serious, well-debated, cross-Party agreement there, but sadly lost in the "campaign-trail" and "[anti?]social-media" noise.

It's certainly lost on much of SW where many American supporters of their own, only two, Parties can't even discuss the climate and environment, nor their own nation's politics, without mere personal insults and swearing: no attempt to see the other's side, no analysis, no subtleties, compromise.

What I don't know though, is how much a site like SW reflects real American life - nor do we know what posts really are from there or are malign ones pretending to be US-made. I think I have read some that may well be from external activists.
.

Whether the American conspiracy-fans are mainly Left, Right or balanced across their nation's spectrum, seemingly broadly Right of its European equivalents, I cannot say but they certainly demand everyone thinks as they do, and must not listen to real politicians of all sides, let alone anyone who understands any science and engineering. (The latter to solve the problems shown by the former.)

.
A lot of the climate-change "deniers" seems to have moved from process to cause, but often ruin their own case by clearly not really understanding natural processes, never mind how human activities can affect them. Poor understanding of scientific methods, too.

It's as if they've rote-remembered, and like to parrot, random fragments from school science and geography, or popular-science TV shows and poor newspaper reporting, but have not really learnt basic science, nor twigged the contexts.

.
Under it all though, I think your Paragraph 3) spot-on, but I am not certain which they fear more: greater "government" (i.e. tax-payers') spending, or changes to their profligate lives. Obviously it will be individual choice, but I think the life-style the more common motive.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Elessar Tim marginally familiar with the farmers protests in the Netherlands and the yellow vest protests in France.

They are against carbon taxes. We can debate the merits of that but that is some difference between saying climate science is a hoax

Plenty on the right think it is an issue. Some think it's exaggerated and sine think methods for combating it have gone too far. Your typical Tory/reform voter will think this. Most US republicans t seem to think it's a hoax.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Burnley123 They're against regulations in general, except when it comes to imports, where they want a super regulated market. One of the excuses for being against said regulations is that the green policies are some political plot from some sort of "NGO deep state" rooted in the EU commission, and not necessary policies, so ultimately in my book they're pretty similar to their Republican counterparts
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
So about those frozen mammoths in Siberia. How rapid did the climate have to change for them to be flash frozen standing up with flowers in their mouth? Climate changes. Sometimes slowly over time and sometimes very rapidly. Sometimes the climate change lasts for a long time and sometimes it lasts a short time. What has never been proven or even indicated is that CO2 is a driver if climate change. We know by the vast amounts of coal and limestone that the levels of CO2 were much higher in the past than they are now and yet the earth did not overheat. Instead it went into an ice age. Very strange on the earth's part don't you think? AGW or ACC is a hoax designed to fool the gullible and destroy human lives.
22Michelle · 61-69, T
@hippyjoe1955 If it's weather if lasts hours, maybe days. You have to know the difference.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@22Michelle so about those frozen mammoths???
Harrryblue · 51-55, M
@hippyjoe1955 well said
Thevy29 · 41-45, M
When Climate scientists said if we don't change and do something now then in 30 years it will be irreversible. And what did the world governments do? They waited 30 years before they did anything... That year in lockdown, saw an immediate improvement in the world, hard to deny that! And yet people still do... We deserve what happens to us.
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@windinhishair true climate change is inevitable but there is no existential threat. Even the so called EXPERTS can not agree to what extent humans impact weather unless you discount the cloud seeding of Dubai where they are now experiencing flooding
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 True EXPERTS believe that man-made climate change is real and is happening right now. If there isn't scientific consensus on whether 99% of the change is man-made, or 92%, it doesn't invalidate the reality of climate change. Nor does long-term climate change over millennia invalidate the short-term climate change resulting from man's activities that is obvious to anyone who is a climate scientist.

Cloud seeding in the Middle East would have had no more than a minor impact on flooding in Dubai.
bbc.com/news/science-environment-68839043

Which right-wing entertainment/hate sites are you using for your erroneous information?
The data says anthropogenic climate change is real. The data comes from temperature and atmospheric measurements covering 800,000 years (about 7 ice ages), recorded in glacial layers & sea floor sediments.

Here's a collection of points from an earlier discussion of climate change.

but I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how miniscule increases in an atmospheric trace gas such as CO2, causes the earth to warm.
It's because CO2 & methane are transparent to visible light but more opaque to infrared. The solar energy comes pouring in via the visible spectrum, but the heat can't leave so easily via the infrared spectrum due to that opacity. Kids' version:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-co2-and-other-greenhouse-gases
idealized quantitative model: https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/coriolis-force/a-simple-mathematical-model-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html

In order to actually prove human carbon emissions influence climate, all variables would have to remain constant
Nope. With multiple data points we can solve for multiple variables simultaneously. Detailed climate models account for all the variables you list and more. They are verified and calibrated based on 800,000 years of prior climate data.
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html

Global warming models are based on small amounts of data. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we are expected to believe they can draw conclusions based on a hockey stick graph with 50 years of data?
Nope, not 50 years, 800,000 years, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from lake & sea floor sediments.
https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores
CO2 & methane & temp data

Here's where the various data sets were collected:

The most salient thing about the 800,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.

Where does the money for climate research come from?
Fair question - it comes mostly from the National Science Foundation. Equally fair: where does the money for climate denial come from? The US oil industry makes about $110 billion per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe none of that money goes to propaganda, are you?
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
There is no anthropogenic climate change
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@ElwoodBlues
As I stated, the references are in another post. If I can find them, I'll provide them.

As I recall, you participated in that post. If you can find it I'd appreciate it.
@HoraceGreenley The slayer of trolls asked
You have evidence for that?
And you replied
Yes
https://similarworlds.com/environment/climate-change/4481659-Climate-Change-is-about-money-and-power

Please pardon my effrontery in assuming the link immediately following the 'yes' was in fact the evidence and not a wild goose chase🤣😂
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@ElwoodBlues
I thought I put my reference list in that post. I was mistaken. This stuff happened 2 years ago.
Torsten · 36-40, M
climate change is real. It was around long before humans even existed and will be a thing long after we are gone. Its narcissistic of certain people to think they can stop it in anyway and its now used for political agendas and that is a sure fire quick way to turn people far away from it
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Torsten The difference is the rate of change and cause of that, but it has certainly become a toxic party-political matter when it should be addressed without any such, weak-minded partisanship.

Human influence on the climate was first posited over 100 years ago but ignored until very recently - hence now waking up, calling it an "emergency" etc., and raising the possibility we may have gone too far for any easy solution to man-made problems.

We cannot do nothing, but whatever we do now, will have costs and possible bad consequences of its own.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Torsten No he did not.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
It is real, but lots of people are on here pushing all sorts of groundless conspiracy theories, like anti vax, 5G, chemtrails etc, while also shrieking that climate change is one vast conspiracy.

In fact, the real conspiracy is that companies have been covering up the effects of fossil fuels on climate for decades.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Deniers isn't the right word. Try "distrusters" instead. We are the people who have learned to take what politicians, whether elected or nor, with a grain of salt. Our degree of distrust seems t go along with how insistent they are about what they say. The more insistent the more likely it's hot air. Also, look at who benefits from the path they are trying to redirect us to, and who suffers. And finally, the personal wealth accumulated by politicians over the course of their office suggest that what they say may be but a sales pitch to add to their own wealth.

From a practical standpoint, I don't believe they have accounted for all the variables that affect the earth we live on and seriously doubt that they can accurately compare today's earth with the earth of 25 years ago, or 100 years ago. There are so many lies they have backed away from that they first start with a conclusion, then try to make up a credible reason to support the conclusion. Like they tried to pass coastal areas sinking for sea level rising. Then it was icebergs melting, then it was thermal expansion.

Just think about it. The same government that was convinced that Solyndra was a wise place for the US government to fork over a half-billion dollars in taxpayers' money is the same government that insists that global warming cause by humans in America is established science.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@Heartlander Most high level science in the UK is directly or indirectly funded by the taxpayer. There are parliamentary checks and balances to ensure that public money is spent prudently. The government of the day can influence where money is directed, but to suggest that climate change is a manufactured consensus is simply untrue. Our current government is luke warm at best on climate change, but this does not stop some of the leading climate change science being produced in the UK. Scientists are highly educated people with ethical codes of their own. Their work would have no standing in the international community if they were known to have been bribed.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@SunshineGirl Great response.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Heartlander If you want to follow the money, wouldn't the trillion dollar a year fossil fuel industry and the powerful nation states that support it have more influence than research grants? The whole world economy is dependent of fossil fuels; would the powers that be try everything they can to deny climate change? I think your are getting mixed up who has the power here.
Ontheroad · M
No, they don't "think", and that's the problem.
Fairydust · F
@Ontheroad

It wasn’t a few, it’s been many, they covered it up.
I’m saying we were right about the vaccines. Maybe we are right about NASA and climate change etc. 😉
Ontheroad · M
@Fairydust "they" covered it up... who is they and where did you get that information?
Fairydust · F
@Ontheroad

The media, who they own, they only show you what they want you to see.

We live in the Truman show lol
Confined · 56-60, M
Look at climate during the jurasic period. It was much much hotter and no polar ice caps.
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
Science is meant to be questioned but the powers that be, don't want that anymore, they just want control. I remember no one being allowed to question the "science" that revolved around COVID. Turns out, most of it was made up and/or hidden and silenced. Very few people question actual climate change, the climate never stops changing. What they question, is man's influence on it and how these ridiculous mandates the powers that be want to or have implemented would help it. So far, no one has answered that. If you want me to follow you, and if it's man-made, that question should be easily answered.
Ynotisay · M
@WizardofOz I'm not going to tell anything. It's pointless. You're not interested in the truth. You want to argue about your feeeeeelings. I'm a grown man with zero interest in that. It's futile and beneath me. Hard pass. .
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
When anything conflicts with anyones world view, there is no evidence that will convince them otherwise.

This applies to whole civilizations. For even the Catholic Church denied the world was a sphere for over a thousand years. See the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes. Even the Greeks and afterwards the Romans didn't want to believe it.

The only way to convince anyone of anything is to repeat the evidence repeatedly and constantly in multiple ways.

This eventually even convinced the Catholic Church, a thousand years later.

And believe it or not there are still deniers! 2,200 years later!
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
@BohemianBabe Okay, so, if tomorrow there were zero carbon emissions, how would that affect the weather? How much would the temperature drop or rise? How long would it take to occur? Would we no longer have "extreme" weather? No more cat. 5 hurricanes or F-5 tornado's? Would weather suddenly become predictable? Or would it remain unpredictable? Al Gore and his "scientist's", predicated, after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, that worse was yet to come! They'll be more numerous and more powerful but guess what, it never happened! Oh, yeah, Al Gore is another leftist that became a millionaire off of climate change! And John Kerry and Barrack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton and yes, the people at NASA! They were literally funded by the left to manipulate data to prove it exists! You're not from the US?
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@WizardofOz well, the insurance companies are pulling out because of an increase in the number of claims, and they can no longer turn a profit. What does that tell you? That is a pretty good indicator that damaging weather has increased.
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
@trollslayer No, actually, that doesn't tell me anything! lol How much had the weather changed in Florida? I haven't heard of any major catastrophic event since they had the hurricane two years ago! It's been pretty much normal. If you have any different data, please, tell me! I can't even remember having a tornado in the last few months.
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
@trollslayer Insurance companies are pulling out because of an increase in claims? I just found out that is partially true, however, misleading! They are refusing to insure NEW construction, which an insurance company views as a "new" claim. That has nothing to do with frequency or intensity of storms but good business!
Insurance companies don’t think it’s a hoax. Here in Florida, companies are dropping customers like hot turds.
Fairydust · F
@Notmesam

Yeah I get that, the people that run the world also control the weather and cause flooding on purpose, that’s how crazy all this is.
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@Notmesam and your point is?
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@Notmesam there is no increase in wind or hurricanes or floods.
The increase is in the number of people moving to hurricane prone areas and increasing cost of construction.
Weather/ climate change has nothing to do with insurance rates.
Same thing goes for people moving to and building in fire prone areas in the west.
Try again sparky. No soup for you today
trollslayer · 46-50, M
I don't know. I remember first reading about it in the late 1980s. The problem is that the change happens slowly enough that it's hard to remember what is "normal", and then perturbations are easy to explain away.

But last year was unprecedented in warmth - by a long shot - nearly everywhere. I'm surprised more people have not changed their tune over the last year. If this summer is just as bad, what then? Perhaps some city like Miami or Venice needs to go under water first?
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@trollslayer I remember in the 1970s there were a few bitter cold winters in a row, and with that came warnings from weather scientist that we were at the dawn of another ice age :)
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@Heartlander Well, based upon the Milankovitch orbital cycles, we should be starting to cool. But those "Warnings" were not a consensus, or even close to that, just a few scientists who were just starting to understand Oxygen isotope data.
SW-User
@trollslayer people have changed their tune, but they won’t admit it. They’re now doubling down on their climate change denialism because they’re scared. It’s as simple as that.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
Also people who are all "the climate has always changed" should perhaps ask why the climate has changed in the past and what happened to most life on earth when it did change.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@sladejr Jesus Christ dude.

My point is that all past mass extinctions were caused by climate change.

CURRENT climate change is human caused. PAST climate change was due to shit like volcanic activity or a few other reasons.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Ynotisay · M
@CountScrofula Each of the last 12 months have set individual monthly records for global temperature. First time it's happened since recording started in the 1880's.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
We know it a hoax. No one can say what temperature we should aim for
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
The Anthropocene - a geological epoch dating from the commencement of significant human impact on the Earth's landscape, ecosystems, and climate - has been around as a concept for a generation or more. To my mind it is by far the most convincing explanation of current climatic instability.
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
@BohemianBabe You are insane! How many Cat. 5 hurricanes have hit the US since 2005, compared to the previous twenty years? How many F-5 Tornado's have hit the US since 2005 compared to the previous twenty years? Seriously, do you even Google(another Silicon Valley Corporation that donates millions to democrat's)to get the truth or just look up the Dems talking points?
@WizardofOz
Your link doesn't work.

Yes it does, copy and paste it.

By the way, cat 5 hurricanes were never a rare "phenomenon"

That's nice. Now they're more common, as are all hurricanes.
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
@BohemianBabe Your link doesn't work! I can't tell you any other way. I'll look it up, I guess.
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
@WizardofOz Well, according to NOAA, the intensity and frequency of them, remain basically the same since the eighties. In answer to another opiner, that said insurance companies are pulling out of Florida, due to more intense and frequent storms, they're pulling out and refusing to insure new construction. Yes, insurance companies have an option to NOT take a risk. It has absolutely nothing to do with frequency of storms but rather a risk evaluation.
AllycatAD · 26-30, F
Since the USA is going to go by the UN climate change mandates that fine, but what about Russia, Japan, Iran, India, Pakistan, (every country that ends with stan) China. Would they follow the same mandates? Can the USA alone make a difference? We also need better options that wind and solar. Solar panels are at best 30% efficient. Nuclear plants are an evil word in the USA but it is green and safe if PROPERLY maintained (expensive too) , all the disasters were a result in poor Maintenace or bad PR (three-mile island) so do I believe in it, yeah we still will at need petroleum for pharmaceutical needs, but since the United States gets that from China it's no big deal.
MartinII · 70-79, M
No-one in their right mind thinks climate change is a hoax. The historical facts are clear enough. But lots of people in their right mind think, or rather know, that it is impossible to predict with certainty how climate change will develop in future.
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
funny how the same kinds of scientists that think they can predict the climate 100 years from now, can't even accurately predict the weather 3 days from now isn't it? 🤔
MartinII · 70-79, M
@wildbill83 Absolutely.
SandWitch · 26-30, F
@wildbill83
What you are not understanding, is that meteorologists are not scientists, nor do scientists study meteorology. Climate change therefore, is not the study of meteorology which is probably why you don't understand what climate change is.
smiler2012 · 56-60
@memakingfriends i agree wit what you say how people cannot say climate change is not happening i have no idea how they can so blind and ignorant too be fair
gol979 · 41-45, M
Define climate change
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
gol979 · 41-45, M
@SW-User for someone who says "we are done" you do sure keep going on.
gol979 · 41-45, M
@JimboSaturn so climate change is "average increase in world temperature"?
SW-User
Lol. Just another thing to blame the people on and of course the only solution is more taxes. Rinse repeat.
SW-User
@Ynotisay Goodness gracious 🥱
I showed you a solution for individuals that doesn't require more taxes

And I asked you if this solves the vehicle emissions tax... ?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
@Ynotisay
Last time. WHAT vehicle emission tax are YOU talking about?

So you entered a conversation and attempted to deny something you know nothing about. Ayayay!

I told YOU to LOOK IT UP!
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
Can you prove these supposed changes have not happened before?
I'll wait
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
Please explain that Greenland was once ice free during 9th-10th centuries
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@22Michelle meybe you have noticed that all the Expert prediction and graphs begin 1n 1979 which was the coldest winter on record. They ignore the 1930 and previous warm periods
Their computer projects are based on calculus. If you studied math you would k ow that any slight variable error will totally alter the outcome.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 Expert predictions do NOT begin in 1979. The coldest winter on record was not 1979. Many graphs show temperatures going back to the beginning of direct measurement in the mid- to late-1800s. Previous warm periods are not ignored.

I studied a year of calculus and a year of differential equations in college, plus computer modeling, statistics, environmental science, environmental engineering, and meteorology, and have used many predictive models for over 40 years. Your bogus claims are laughable in their ignorance. But they are also profoundly sad at the same time, since you clearly are clueless yet embrace your ignorance.
22Michelle · 61-69, T
@Patriot96 I'm noticing your argument s based on wilful self ignorance. And that your points have already been refuted by wind8nhishair, so I'll not bother. The bible is not the "word of god". It was written by men, and reflects how they understood the world. If the philosophy within helps yoh lead your life then good for you, but that's all it is, the philosophy of an ancient people.
Ynotisay · M
They've been systematically trained, by the oil companies, their cohorts and political partners, to fight against the very thing that is hurting them. It's no different than what we saw around Covid. Science as a whole has been turned in to an enemy so climate change is discounted because it "belongs" to the enemy.
kutee · T
billions of years, 4.5 billion at last guess, so it snot the planet which will die, its the humans, and when were all dead, the planet will renew again. trees will grow allthe cities will be hidden , like the aztec or thai cities foundin the jungle
InHeaven · F
Geo engineering
The rich and powerful deny it for economic reasons. Conservatards deny it for culture reasons.
@WizardofOz Billionaires pay scientists to find evidence that climate change isn't real. The opposite doesn't happen because the money is on the side of letting corporations pollute. Corporations don't want laws to stop them from polluting, because they want to be able to do anything to save money.

Also, saying the Left is currently in power is insane. The president is an establishment Centrist who is against the Green New Deal, plus he's currently funding a genocide for a fascist country. The SCOTUS is dominated by far-right sociopath Republicans. Where exactly are these Leftists in power?
WizardofOz · 26-30, M
@BohemianBabe The United States Congress pays NASA billions to find the existence of Climate Change! Jesus Christ! Silicon valley pays the left millions and millions and millions to pass legislation to mandate laws that make them rich! Where have you been? Didn't Joe Biden recently sign an executive order on "Green Energy"? What about Gavin Newsome? They literally, tell us what will happen if we don't implement these ridiculous mandates but have no answer when they are asked, "what will the result be"? Your entire science is based on results but you can't answer what they would be!
@WizardofOz
The United States Congress pays NASA billions to find the existence of Climate Change!

Source?

Silicon valley pays the left millions and millions and millions to pass legislation to mandate laws that make them rich!

Source?

Didn't Joe Biden recently sign an executive order on "Green Energy"?

Biden has done a lot of good, but that doesn't make him a Leftist. He's still a Liberal and pretty conservative when it comes to certain issues. Again, he opposes the Green New Deal. His stance on environmentalism has been centrist.

They literally, tell us what will happen if we don't implement these ridiculous mandates but have no answer when they are asked, "what will the result be"?

The result of what? Reducing pollution? The Earth will remain inhabitable for humans, that's what would happen.
FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M
[media=https://youtu.be/s2oGUbsMrD4]
Fairydust · F
@FloorGenAdm

The elites will keep their vintage cars though! 🙄
The same people burned so many "witches" that mainly only men survived. A few women.
SandWitch · 26-30, F
@Roundandroundwego
...and I'm one of them, but I'm not pissed off at them anymore.
@SandWitch it's important to understand our context, and we have no progress separating us from those burners.
kutee · T
climate change is now a prfit making policy so govt will soon allbe invlved
SW-User
@kutee I rest my case
Fairydust · F
How do you not see that the ones pushing climate change are pushing this agenda!

Ffs 🤦🏼‍♀️
Missbirdie1986 · 36-40, F
Humans are causing that bad weathers some how
Donotfolowme · 51-55, F
It is true as I can see it.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 Nope.Global temperatures were not higher in the 1930s:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Nor were global temperatures higher during Roman times:

scitechdaily.com/global-temperature-reconstruction-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented/
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@windinhishair you mightbwant to recheck your stats
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 No need to. The earth is much warmer now than it has been in historical times, including the 1930s. I've provided sources. You haven't.
caesar7 · 61-69, M
Oh..it's real alright. There are signs all around us. Let's not kid ourselves and deny it. Besides, we are 8 billion and counting. That's a lot of people. It's bound to affect the earth and our precious resources. I pity the generations to come.
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@caesar7 its called weather
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SandWitch · 26-30, F
It's not climate change that deniers have issues with, it's the alleged man-made cause of climate change that have deniers pushing back on the issue of climate change.

As a global society, we seem to believe that the over-use of carbon fuels over the past 100 years is what's causing climate change to occur now. The truth is, the Ice Age was caused by unprecedented volcanic eruptions around the globe which blocked the sunlight from entering the earth's Troposphere which is the earth's lowest atmosphere.

This action alone pretty much shut down life on earth as earth's inhabitants had otherwise come to enjoy it at the time. The burning of fossil fuels over the past 100 years will no more cause volcanic eruptions to occur anymore than the burning of fossil fuels will be the root cause of tornados forming during untraditional seasons throughout the year.

The world is not switching to electric cars to reverse the effects of climate change; the world is switching to electric cars because most known oil reserves will be depleted before the end of this current century.

Any oil that is currently being discovered is very difficult to extract from the earth compared to how easy it otherwise was to extract in the mid-1970's which marked the peak of global oil consumption and the historic time of 'easy oil'.
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@SandWitch ever heard of Anwar?
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@SandWitch
The truth is, the Ice Age was caused by unprecedented volcanic eruptions around the globe which blocked the sunlight from entering the earth's Troposphere which is the earth's lowest atmosphere.

And where did you get your science degree?

Mine is in Cenozoic Geology, and I can tell you that is 100% incorrect.
tenente · 100+, M
how did this post blow up? 🤔
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@tenente @tenente @tenente Climate change posts always blow up lol
If they're xtian show them this.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2013/05/26/the-fate-of-those-who-destroy-the-earth-revelation-1118/
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@TexChik so true
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment