Pages:
Author

Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 13. (Read 22115 times)

legendary
Activity: 2688
Merit: 1468
Why would anyone think that changes in climate (climate change) isn't happening or hasn't happened? It is all around us?

The thing that is misleading is the way some people have made the term "climate change" to mean something that they expressly want us to believe, when there isn't any proof for it.

Consider this. Scientists claim that evolution happened over millions of years, and that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. Did climate change wipe out the human race over that time? No! Did each of those people die? Yes!

Go look at the cemeteries and see if people die. Go find someone who is over 200 years old so that we can see that maybe people don't die after all.

You're gonna die! With or without climate change, you're gonna die.

Climate change is a bunch-of-lies program some elite have set in place to play on your fears in ways so that they can gain control over you and your money.

Cool

There is some evidence that we were almost wiped out about 70,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory

Today, the problem is several magnitudes larger but we have the technology to muddle through and continue to destroy our habitat.

Ignorance is bliss.  You can deny it, but it will not change the fact that each year young people get their driver's licenses and buy new homes, built on farmlands.  

As more people join the pollution train than leave it, you have a positive feedback loop that nobody is talking about.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
Why would anyone think that changes in climate (climate change) isn't happening or hasn't happened? It is all around us?

The thing that is misleading is the way some people have made the term "climate change" to mean something that they expressly want us to believe, when there isn't any proof for it.

Consider this. Scientists claim that evolution happened over millions of years, and that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. Did climate change wipe out the human race over that time? No! Did each of those people die? Yes!

Go look at the cemeteries and see if people die. Go find someone who is over 200 years old so that we can see that maybe people don't die after all.

You're gonna die! With or without climate change, you're gonna die.

Climate change is a bunch-of-lies program some elite have set in place to play on your fears in ways so that they can gain control over you and your money.

Cool
jr. member
Activity: 72
Merit: 2
Well, put it this way: people deny or hate anything they don't understand and know nothing about. Worst is misinformation. These days it's so easy to get information from everyone and everywhere, and most of them are false. If they don't believe in climate change, let them believe otherwise. Someday, when the climate gets worst, to the point where it will affect our civilization, they will finally understand and believe it's real after all. Just you wait and see.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Rather than respond bluefirecorp_ just continues to move on, not bothering to support his premise with proof. It is much easier to sell bullshit when you stay away from facts and debate stuff that has no demonstrable direct causal connection.

Stop running away and making excuses.
QUOTE YOUR EMPIRICAL DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
The problem isn't climate change. If it stops raining in the jungle for 10 minutes, the climate has changed. Many countries have seasons... climate change. The problem has to do with the way climate change is described by some people.

In a different post and thread about global warming, I said that global cooling has been in effect since about the year 2000. I misspoke. What is happening is that the rate of global warming is slowing down. However, we might be to the point of global cooling taking over, and I just haven't read about it, yet.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

Quote
But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.
Concern troll

News reporters report a guy's story. Overall, they're reporting on the local, normally uneducated, villages. By uneducated, they're just cultural breeding grounds, really. Give the story a watch man, instead of just looking for troll points.

It's an interesting story of these entire remote villages dealing with climate change. They should be moving, they should be concerned, but they're just staying put, because culture. The ones that do want to move, can't because funding.
....

Now you are plain lying, misrepresenting what I said directly. Here is your misrepresentation of my comments.

I said this "Actually, at least in this case, they are not the presenter of fake news."

To which you delete my comments and impute the opposite.

However, if you think NPR presents 'fake news', that's your prerogative. They're a fair and unbiased* source of information.

Here is exactly what I then said, which you deleted in order to present that misinformation.

The presenter of fake news is YOU, linking to a news event and imputing content to it that the link does not have. The article clearly says that without the Western influence, without our putting facilities there that should not have been there, the Inuits would not have a settlement there. They were NOMADIC. I'd support our paying to relocate them but not on some fake and rigged argument about climate change. Barrier islands ERODE. Duh...

Please stop the fake news.
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 152
https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

Quote
But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.
Concern troll

News reporters report a guy's story. Overall, they're reporting on the local, normally uneducated, villages. By uneducated, they're just cultural breeding grounds, really. Give the story a watch man, instead of just looking for troll points.

It's an interesting story of these entire remote villages dealing with climate change. They should be moving, they should be concerned, but they're just staying put, because culture. The ones that do want to move, can't because funding.


However, if you think NPR presents 'fake news', that's your prerogative. They're a fair and unbiased* source of information.

* They normally report any connections they have to the stories.

** NPR's funding: https://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2017/National_Public_Radio_Consolidate_Financial_Statements_D1617_FINAL.pdf
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

Quote
But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.

Actually, at least in this case, they are not the presenter of fake news. Let's look at exactly what they say.

Of course, climate change is only adding to a problem that already existed in Shishmaref — it was always vulnerable to erosion, making it a risky place for a permanent settlement.

So why was it there to begin with?

It’s a question Kelly Eningowuk, who heads the Anchorage-based Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska, hears a lot.

“I've heard something to the effect of, ‘These dumb Eskimos, why did they build their community on a barrier island?’” Eningowuk says. “The fact of the matter is, because [that’s where] the church and the Bureau of Indian Affairs school was built.


The presenter of fake news is YOU, linking to a news event and imputing content to it that the link does not have. The article clearly says that without the Western influence, without our putting facilities there that should not have been there, the Inuits would not have a settlement there. They were NOMADIC. I'd support our paying to relocate them but not on some fake and rigged argument about climate change. Barrier islands ERODE. Duh...

Please stop the fake news.
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 152
https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

Quote
But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
Because there are people that believes that whatever is going on in our environment right now is just a normal occurrence, not knowing that every year, the weather is getting worst....

Yes, the weather right now is totally normal.

It's not getting worse every year.

I understand there's considerable propaganda with every extreme weather even to shape public opinion, but try to get past that.
newbie
Activity: 71
Merit: 0
Because there are people that believes that whatever is going on in our environment right now is just a normal occurrence, not knowing that every year, the weather is getting worst. And then, it will be too late when they finally realized that they've been wrong all along and the planet is actually about to go down in flames.
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

To stay on topic as a general rule with regards to any form of information or skepticism.... "fact" is something an majority have agreed upon and hence from that day they call it an fact.... we call the grass green because we reached an consensus on the usage and interpretation of both the words "grass" and the word "green". Coming back to your question of  "why"... it's simple.... It's harder to defend than to attack facts in general and especially on global warming where the data is interpretable in many ways to the highest bidder for a mouthpiece P.H.D. degree for both organisations/goverments/companies etc at both sides whether it's a bio-hippy or the oil-junky. Long story short....It's a fight between who is better in convincing and the "facts" are secondary as long the objective is reached...which is convince you of the existence or myth of global warming.

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Go research each of the studies in that picture. Find the scientists that posted their research on climate change. Bam! There's your empirical data, or at least the methodologies on how the data was analyzed to get the information.

But nah, just gonna troll bitcointalk a bit more, aren't ya? Silly uneducated baboon. Wink

How about YOU go research it since YOU are making the claim, and the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU. Or, you know just pretend I am uneducated and play it off like I am just too dumb to look it up, not that you don't have any clue what you are even talking about. How do you expect to convince anyone of anything if you can't explain it yourself?

I presented proof, you refuse to accept it.

You're too dumb to understand the proof. But hey, no matter what evidence I present, you'll still stick your head in the sand like the buffoon you are. Wink

Tell me, what "proof" was that exactly? Please quote. I carefully reviewed all your posts and I saw no proof of anthropogenic climate change.
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 152
Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

Go research each of the studies in that picture. Find the scientists that posted their research on climate change. Bam! There's your empirical data, or at least the methodologies on how the data was analyzed to get the information.

But nah, just gonna troll bitcointalk a bit more, aren't ya? Silly uneducated baboon. Wink

How about YOU go research it since YOU are making the claim, and the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU. Or, you know just pretend I am uneducated and play it off like I am just too dumb to look it up, not that you don't have any clue what you are even talking about. How do you expect to convince anyone of anything if you can't explain it yourself?

I presented proof, you refuse to accept it.

You're too dumb to understand the proof. But hey, no matter what evidence I present, you'll still stick your head in the sand like the buffoon you are. Wink
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

Go research each of the studies in that picture. Find the scientists that posted their research on climate change. Bam! There's your empirical data, or at least the methodologies on how the data was analyzed to get the information.

But nah, just gonna troll bitcointalk a bit more, aren't ya? Silly uneducated baboon. Wink

How about YOU go research it since YOU are making the claim, and the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU. Or, you know just pretend I am uneducated and play it off like I am just too dumb to look it up, not that you don't have any clue what you are even talking about. How do you expect to convince anyone of anything if you can't explain it yourself?
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 152
Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

Go research each of the studies in that picture. Find the scientists that posted their research on climate change. Bam! There's your empirical data, or at least the methodologies on how the data was analyzed to get the information.

But nah, just gonna troll bitcointalk a bit more, aren't ya? Silly uneducated baboon. Wink
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

People are skeptical about climate change because it's something they can't see happening in real time. The same goes for things like evolution. Because you can't show them it actually happening via a video or in some other digestible format they often just discredit it or write it off as a conspiracy. With that being said, I don't deny that climate change is happening, but I'm not entirely convinced it's 100% due to man made issues either. Then again, I'm not a scientist.

The problem is the non-scientists 'rebuking' the notion. The science community overwhelming believes one way.



Also:



That's interesting. There sure are a lot of people with opinions. Very impressive.

Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 152
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

People are skeptical about climate change because it's something they can't see happening in real time. The same goes for things like evolution. Because you can't show them it actually happening via a video or in some other digestible format they often just discredit it or write it off as a conspiracy. With that being said, I don't deny that climate change is happening, but I'm not entirely convinced it's 100% due to man made issues either. Then again, I'm not a scientist.

The problem is the non-scientists 'rebuking' the notion. The science community overwhelming believes one way.



Also:

legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1195
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

People are skeptical about climate change because it's something they can't see happening in real time. The same goes for things like evolution. Because you can't show them it actually happening via a video or in some other digestible format they often just discredit it or write it off as a conspiracy. With that being said, I don't deny that climate change is happening, but I'm not entirely convinced it's 100% due to man made issues either. Then again, I'm not a scientist.

Most skeptical people to climate change are people aware of the real situation. I, for example, do not believe in climate change. I think it is a plan to stop the US from developing its industries. Our car industry will crash if we try to implement European agreements on climate change. I think it is a total hoax. Climate change is just like Nessie, the monster of the lockness. Some people believe in Nessie. We have never seen it. Some people believe in climate change. Have they ever seen it? The rise or fall of temperature is called season, not climate change. Too much politics in this topic.

Like this guy for a perfect example. A lot of people always look for the conspiracy and who it benefits, even without evidence themselves.
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 152
I'll say it again - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it.

-Baseless opinions and no facts-

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Until you post a single piece of evidence, I'm done wasting my time constantly refuting your made up drivel.

Now you are falsely attributing comments to me, which is obviously against the forum rules. "Baseless opinions and no facts" is what YOU SAID, not I.

Why would deceit further your cause?

It is the problem, not the solution.

After all, a proud dispenser of FACTS must be truthful, or he has no facts.

You have no facts.

I'm bringing this topic back to the topic. People need to see you get shutdown repetitively with scientific arguments.

You really seem to be a state sponsored troll at this point.
Pages:
Jump to: