Could There Be a 'Reason' For Climate Change Denial?

I am a firm believer in advanced alien conspiracy theories. And I certainly am not alone in any event.

David Icke specifically believes world leaders are all reptilians. And while I don't necessarily endorse that theory, I know where he's coming from. Mankind is so advanced, even compared to other primates, we have to have had some covert help.

Anyway, I have been thinking of global warming deniers as of late. And I wonder if it is an accident. All these idiots just suddenly all denying it at the same time.

What if there is a good reason for it? Maybe it is to avert an unforeseen ice age. Or even more scary, what if it actually is to hurt us in some way. Just some thoughts on the matter.

 

I'm starting to become slightly skeptic of why you post these threads that you never follow up on. However they are usually fairly interesting topics...


I think it's presumptuous to suggest that mankind is so advanced that the only explanation for it is that our advancements were/are mediated by aliens, interdimensional beings or any other entities that we have a foggy notion of.

We shape the environment far beyond that of other animals, vertebrates in particular, but most other ways in which we draw comparisons are going to prompt anthropocentric biases. For instance, how can you definitively say that we're more intelligent than dolphins? Only a select few humans and a select few dolphins have superficially communicated with each other, none to my knowledge agreeing on a testable way to measure relative intelligences.


As far as Climate Change Denial goes, it's a political hot button. Social Media has provided a stronger voice for far more people with less expertise on such topics, often reinforcing their ideas by filtering information. Even more ridiculous ideas such as Flat Earth have promulgated in recent years as well, so I don't think it necessarily says anything about concealed information.

 

is the theory denied in itself or is it the priority assigned to the theory to low?

 

Of course there's a reason--it looks like this=$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

 

It is about money! That coal and oil in the ground is worth trillions and the greedy want the money. And politicians want their share so they can continue enjoying their power.

Politicians are just like most cops. They were bullied as youngsters and want to be able to bully back. So, cops get a badge and gun and politicians get their titles.

 

What is a 'global warming denier' and what do you call someone that holds the opposing position?

 

Erudite.

 

Which in latin really just means the negative of rude

 

So heating/cooling your home, electricty that powers your TV, charges your cell phone......the gas and oil that runs your car

Thats all because of greedy politicians and evil corporations, if it werent for greedy politicians and evil corporations, youd quickly give up those things to save the planet?

 

A global warming denier is someone who forgets to notice that ALL nuclear power stations are about 30% efficient and the remaining 70% of energy (which is heat) is pumped into the oceans by the cooling water pumps.
It only takes 83 calories to melt a gram of ice at 0 degrees centigrade,
Your brain is younger than mine, , so you can do the maths and work out how much ice these power stations are destroying.

Total world nuclear power production = 2,500 TWh per year
Waste heat = 5,835 TWh per year
4.2 watts = 1 calorie.

Just take the waste heat in watts. divide it by 4.2 to convert to calories and then by 1.000.000 to calculate the weight of ice potentially melted in metric tonnes.

 

You think waste heat from nuclear plants is a significant contributor to global warming?

 

I have though that for some years, but it is difficult to prove. The only positive facts are simply from Newton's laws that energy cannot be destroyed, therefore once created, the heat adds to the thermal balance of the planet.
Many scientist deny the problem based on ocean currents, but it is far more complex than that. Around nuclear plant, the higher water temperatures will cool due to evaporation. This adds water vapor in the ultimate form of clouds. As these clouds fall as rain, ALL the heat will be given up again as the vapor condenses back to a liquid. It is already known that rain falling over the ice caps has become a major factor in their degradation.

PS...
If you read in the papers that I have been found floating face down in the river Thames, you will know that my hypothesis is true.

 

Are you saying that somewhere in a far distant universe we will one day discover the planet "Trump".????

No thank you. One is more than enough.!!!!!!!

 

That certain corporations and politicians prefer not to change is obviously money related.
Don't forget the thriving and profitable plastic bag business here btw, VG But for real: this is actually one of the aspects in global pollution that could indeed be stopped by simply giving it up (unlike electric energy of course, which should be used responsibly and become 'greener' soon. But doesn't have to be abandoned as you often love to put it). I mean, using a durable bag for as long as you can, instead of buying regularly a new one that you often throw away as soon as you're home... What an awful idea right!?

 

So you are saying in the Netherlands in recent years the amount of plastic produced or imported has gone down?

 

Oh, here we go

So tell us, which one of Newtons "laws" is that?

 

Fig Newtons..

 

Many people believe that god promised Noah there would never be another great flood so it won't happen

 

You sound like Storch. No, I wasn't saying that. Why put it like that in earnest?

 

Science is the enemy of ignorance.