• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate change denial

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is this attitude of those who cannot see how particularly inexorable the destruction of our planet is: through the disappearance of lakes, rivers, and forests, that used to exist even 30,000 years ago, and that now are the result of the overexploitation of our planet.
More people on Earth= more human activities to produce all the electricity we need to support these people.
It's undeniable. We are destroying our planet, and the climate has definitively changed.
Nothing's gonna be the same again.

Why are so many people in denial?

Just to clarify (for the US), "so many people in denial" refers to approximately 15% of the population (in the US).
PS_2023.08.09_climate-change_00-01.png

And a super-majority think it's an important issue for Congress and the president to deal with (in the US).

19449.jpeg


At this point, dwelling on climate denial is really inconsequential.

I recommend asking other questions:
  1. What can we do to alter our climate?
  2. What is our optimal climate?
To the first point, no reasonable solution has been proposed, which is to say all suggested solutions cause more problems than they alleviate.
To the second point, the global temperature reached an average of 62.87 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday (the highest ever recorded), but the optimal temperature for life to thrive on Earth is considered to be 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

We need to look beyond a blind objection to "change". For progress to be made on climate, there needs to be a real proposal that works to improve people's lives. Solutions that have people generally living lower quality lives just to benefit elites is an obvious non-starter.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The fossil fuel industry controls the Republican party.
Groups like Koch industries are responsible for messaging to the conservative masses.
It's always amazed me how conservatives deny the science and trust the word of corporations responsible for the pollution.
Well, if industry, banking and corporate interests now own all the news media, and fund conservative election campaigns, they can generate all the P.R. they want and the conservatives will happily back them up.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not long ago, California was experiencing a mega-drought and water was running out. It was pointed to as an example of climate change. After about a decade, the rains returned and the lakes filled in and the wells were restored. So now the drought there is all-but-forgotten, and the fact that things balanced out didn't convince anyone of anything.
The climate there changed, and then changed right back to the way it was again, and that was before electric cars were much of a thing.
But the climate has not "changed back." Yes, there are regional fluctuations, but, on the whole, the change is global and ongoing.
 

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is this attitude of those who cannot see how particularly inexorable the destruction of our planet is: through the disappearance of lakes, rivers, and forests, that used to exist even 30,000 years ago, and that now are the result of the overexploitation of our planet.
More people on Earth= more human activities to produce all the electricity we need to support these people.
It's undeniable. We are destroying our planet, and the climate has definitively changed.
Nothing's gonna be the same again.

Why are so many people in denial?
Ok, who is in denial? Can you show me one person who's in denial of climate change at all?
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
The denial is not about climate change, but about the manmade up climate change. We know, for example, the peak of the most current glacial maximal period was about 18,000 year ago when sea level was 120 meters lower than today. By the time the man made up aspect for global warming and climate change appeared, in say 1860, natural global warming and natural climate change has already raised sea level by 119.3 meters. Yet the models do not give Mother Nature much credit as being a major contributing factor.

Below are two graphs of sea level as a function of time. I present it to show how nature has done this many times. On the bottom graph it shows the sea level has been rising since about 18,000 years ago. We are still in that warming cycle. The top graphs show mother nature has done this many times before, even over the past million years. This is natural to the earth, and since the earth and life is still here, this change is normal. There is no need to panic, kill the world economy and install global authoritarian socialism.

Man made climate change, even if true, is a unique occurrence in science. One occurrence of a theory is not enough to validate any theory. Isn't science supposed to run duplicate experiments before going to market and selling? As an analogous example of what I am saying, not long ago a team said they had a unique occurrence of cold fusion. Did we run with that, or was science acting more adult before drinking the kool-aid based on potential fame and fortune? Others were allowed to test and try to falsify the theory. No other team could duplicate that unique occurrence. Nature has many occurrences of global warming and climate change and is therefore the better theory in terms of following the rules of the philosophy of science. One can draw any graph through one occurrence point, including bogeyman scenarios.

Beyond that, the political side that is pushing man made up climate change are the Progressives, in general and the DNC in the USA. They are notorious for lying, running scams, money laundering tax payer money via their scams, applying political pressure, and now even law fair to silence opposition. The term denier sounds like one of the propaganda memes from their playbook. Denier is a derivative of same technique for calling someone racist, is they wish to discuss black on black crime in Democrat run cities. The goal is to silence opposition so the truth does not spoil their lies and coverups.

Water is the main variable for our earth's climate, not CO2. Water is the only material on earth that exists in three phases all at the same time and has the capacity to control climate. The proportion of these phases of water determine sea level and ice cover, as well as the amount of water in the atmosphere which then drives weather. Whether is about water vapor become liquid; rain, and solid; snow. Water is continuous from the atmosphere to the core of the earth and thereby impacts crustal plates and heat coming from the inner earth.

Water as ice reflects light and heat and adds a cooling effect to the earth, while water as liquid and gas absorb heat. The ratio of ice to surface water determines whether we get colder or warmer. Once the ice pack gets large enough there is run away cooling effect. The same is true as the ice cover melts to a certain surface area level, then we have a run away heating effect. If you look at the bottom graph at the upper left of the graph, sea level was already 10 meter higher than today and fell to the present level before Man made up, took credit.

Figure16.jpg

Where is your graph for CO2 over the same time period?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Just to clarify (for the US), "so many people in denial" refers to approximately 15% of the population (in the US).
PS_2023.08.09_climate-change_00-01.png

And a super-majority think it's an important issue for Congress and the president to deal with (in the US).

19449.jpeg


At this point, dwelling on climate denial is really inconsequential.

I recommend asking other questions:
  1. What can we do to alter our climate?
  2. What is our optimal climate?
To the first point, no reasonable solution has been proposed, which is to say all suggested solutions cause more problems than they alleviate.
To the second point, the global temperature reached an average of 62.87 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday (the highest ever recorded), but the optimal temperature for life to thrive on Earth is considered to be 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

We need to look beyond a blind objection to "change". For progress to be made on climate, there needs to be a real proposal that works to improve people's lives. Solutions that have people generally living lower quality lives just to benefit elites is an obvious non-starter.
Global warming is happening. Both by humans and nature. The speed at which it is happening seems to be the biggest problem.

However over 200+ million years ago earth was hotter. CO2 levels were higher. Earth is now at a point in its orbit around the milky way that it hasn't been in 230mya. Coincidence? Maybe.

Is the fear factor being over played?
Absolutely.

Are people looking to/trying to profit from it?
Absolutely.

Has it became too political?
Absolutely.

Does politics cause a negative impact on it?
Absolutely.

Science isn't politics and politics isn't science.
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
the global temperature reached an average of 62.87 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday (the highest ever recorded), but the optimal temperature for life to thrive on Earth is considered to be 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

On that, you are the only person that I have seen post about that.
The science that says we are getting too hot is also the same science that says we are currently 5+ degrees below the optimal temp for life to thrive.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
On that, you are the only person that I have seen post about that.
The science that says we are getting too hot is also the same science that says we are currently 5+ degrees below the optimal temp for life to thrive.

If both claims are both somewhat true, the problem may be that they are express in too simple versions.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
If both claims are both somewhat true, the problem may be that they are express in too simple versions.
Well they both seem to be true.

"The results from the Copernicus Climate Change Service show the planet’s average temperature on July 22 was 17.15 degrees Celsius (62.87 degrees Fahrenheit)"


"All species on Earth appear to thrive at an “optimal” 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), according to a new study, which suggests land species may struggle more to adapt to changing climate."

 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
There are many rules that can apply, depending on what you do; can you be specific on which rules you're referring to?

Read the site rules:

Rule 1 applies in a sense.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Read the site rules:

Rule 1 applies in a sense.
I don't see how linking a previously posted public post would violate rule #1. But I may be wrong.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Well they both seem to be true.

"The results from the Copernicus Climate Change Service show the planet’s average temperature on July 22 was 17.15 degrees Celsius (62.87 degrees Fahrenheit)"


"All species on Earth appear to thrive at an “optimal” 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), according to a new study, which suggests land species may struggle more to adapt to changing climate."

Yeah, that is not the same as such.
The one is an avarage for all of the world and the other is for a local situation. That is not the same as an avarge of 20 could be bad globally as it doesn't tell us how much have higher temperatures.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't see how linking a previously posted public post would violate rule #1. But I may be wrong.

As long as it is within the thread it seems okay.
The problem is how to understand the challange or belittle:
"Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack."
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Yeah, that is not the same as such.
The one is an avarage for all of the world and the other is for a local situation. That is not the same as an avarge of 20 could be bad globally as it doesn't tell us how much have higher temperatures.
Don't know where you got that but ok.

All.of life on earth isn't a local situation.
 
Top