What Is The Climate-Deniers' True Motive?

It's really about the average idiot not caring about tomorrow. Simple as that.

Put it to you another way. Say I go to people's houses one by one and tell them their municiple taxes are being wasted on 10 jobs that literally do nothing. Many people will probably listen to me and maybe even sign a petition. But ultimately nothing will be done for years until enough people are struggling financially and by then the 10 jobs will have been cut behind closed doors and the township would pretend they never existed.

Sorry for a rather bland example but I'm tired. Point being if the majority populace doesn't give a crap, like people not willing to do their own taxes on time, then why are the rich going to care for them.

There are already large chunks of land that are protected and will undoubtedly be used to segregate the rich as climate gets worse. No doubt in my mind. Solar powered mansions, etc. Meanwhile the majority populace will continue to suffer from rising cancer rates due to pollution and recycle thinking they're making a difference, etc.

Then there's population control. Since the development of nuclear weaponry, the big world powers could not afford a world war to cull the numbers. Other methods are available but they're taking too long while world population continues to rise rapidly. Genocide in the under-developed world is doing its part but in the developed world to keep the economy churning, whatever birth deficit is accomplished, immigrants need to be brought in.

Ultimately these urban ghettos, which will continue to prove hazardous, will increase as the economy forces people to sell homes for smaller homes, etc.

 

Besides all the other reasons mentioned, there is the fundamentalist point of view that God is in charge of everything, and won't let us fuck up nature beyond repair.

 

worrying about climate is silly, you have no direct control over it. when you figure out how to alter seasonal changes and how the earth revolves around the sun, feel free to let me know, because those would be awesome party tricks.

 

It's posts like this that remind me of why denialism is so effective.

It's because we live in an age where certain people can read a bunch of BS on denier sites and walk away with the impression that they're smarter than NASA.

 

To keep the rain from falling?

 

LOL
when man began to domesticate cattle, we began to alter the atmosphere.

There has always been climate changes, about that there is no argument. Many natural factors go into it.
volcanic eruptions dump tons of carbon dioxide, methane and other toxic gasses into the atmosphere.
methane is continually released into the atmosphere from swamps and peat bogs as well as underwater pockets that occasionally get disturbed by natural events.
So it is obvious that just by virtue of acts of nature, things have happened/happen that alter the climate.

Now all those events represent a relative baseline of events contributing to climate fluctuations.
When you then add on top of that baseline things that are the direct result of human activity and as the human population increased these effects begin to compound and increase exponentially, we begin to exceed the planets natural ability to maintain equilibrium


Also for your information, human activity HAS altered the rotational speed of the Earth with the net effect being that a day is shorter now than it was only 50-60 years ago.
By stockpiling water in dams and reservoirs, most of which are in the northern hemisphere of the planet, we have altered the distribution of mass and thus the rotational speed of the planet.
so what was that you were saying about "when you figure out how to alter seasonal changes and how the earth revolves around the sun,"

not to mention that water stockpiles also greatly alter the local climate and environment.

 

forecast models be any good?

 

god don;t have a charge fuckin freeloader wont work a lick either but I got words for him

 

Well to be fair, climate change wasn't presented to people out of a scientific method, rather through political endeavors. And as such, people are prone to believe political motives can be used to shape the media to say anything. Thus some people don't believe it's true at all, while there's evidence of polar ice caps melting in alaska and the arctic,

Antarctica contrasty has shown record growths in their ice.

Water and ice in constantly redistrupted and that is never presented in any political arguments. Political science is being used in place of environmental science, and that is why people are lost on the issue.

--
Personally I'm not prone to believe in media issues so much, and if anybody actually cared we already have the technology to push clean energy.. Don't know why oil industry CEO's wouldn't just buy in to the next industry and own that :unsure:

 

all the life is in the water

 

Royal academe of sciences pamphlet circa 1970 I mean that is where read it first

 

Now, doggonnit, how in the heck can hundreds of coal plants belching smoke, millions and millions of cars driving, freon emitting ACs working, volcanoes firing up, wars blowing things up, factories running for the last 100 years possibly have ANY effect on temperatures?? Golly, I can't figure it out. Gee, it's so mysterious.

 

yeah but the article states that Antarctic ice caps continue to shrink and that will raise seal levels.
the antarctic sea ice comes and goes, it's the ice caps on land that are the real metric to watch, and they have been steadily decreasing.

another point is that if the arctic ice shelves continue to recede and melt it can potentially break the gulf stream which moves a lot of heat energy around the world and if that fails, we could be very fucked climate wise.

 

you forgot about the multiple billions of acres of land converted from grassland to parking lots and freeways just sitting there soaking in heat energy instead of the cooling effect vegetation has.

 

Yep, heard about it from my 6th grade science teacher. Greenhouse gasses causing global warming and climate change.

 

And fuck, it was serious then.

 

That's because most people refuse to look at science or think about it.

 

Can you blame them? Very few scientists have done a good job with translating their research into understandings of an average daily life.
There's some very good exceptions of course.
Also I don't know if I agree that people 'refuse' to look at science, researching yourself costs a lot of money to find real information, on top of which, many concepts and words used in science our beyond most people's comprehension.

but let me give you an example from a scientific textbook and tell me how much of it you truly understand.
I'll even choose one based on the topic of climate

full document here http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/pdf/Chapter_3.pdf

 

Oh come on, you know how uncool it's always been to care about science in America.

And how many scientists are paid to explain things to ordinary people?

That was an easy one. He was complaining about the limited usefulness of zero-dimension climate data. I get that. As a business person, if I was given zero-dimension economic data or demographic data, I wouldn't know what to do with it. It's incomplete and therefore useless for marketing and advertising purposes.

Having lived in the mountains for a few years, I know how useless weather information can be for a single point. Every altitude level on a mountain is at a different temperature, and the slopes in all four compass directions can have different weather. And the next mountain over to the right may have completely different weather from the one on the left. I did't learn that from science class, but from spending time up there.

I know that the climate has changed in the NC mountains because the snow patterns are different, and vines from the flatlands grow in more places, at higher altitudes. I've seen a steady progression over 20 years.