Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TruthSeeker0

Climate change: what motivates denial

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Once again......THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!.....NEXT!

 

I think you misunderstand the science. No one is predicting the sky to cave in. Sheesh.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very little "sky is falling" in that article. Just saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So BO, you are only going to buy insurance after they require it? Well that's common sense I suppose. You wouldn't buy something before they have a product to buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BO, we get it. You don't buy it. Why do you feel compelled to keep repeating this? You don't buy it. So move on. Other people are conversing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in NZ we are a free country. We are not "required" to have any insurance... but you'd be stupid not to.

 

Regarding the "religion" article, the word religion now is near meaningless as whenever someone accepts something someone else doesn't like they go oh that's your 'religion'. No, at worst its an ideology. This can have similar characteristics to religion, but is separate from it. Religion has as it's main points a being/s who is worshiped and who's teachings are upheld. Think Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism.

 

Ideology on the other hand is a set of ideas (say Climate change), often politicised that one adheres to.

 

Do some people have as an 'ideology' climate change? Sure. Do I agree with them on everything? No. Does the fact that some people run too far with science and make an ideology out of it mean the science of climate change itself is wrong? Only if you are BO and not buying anything today... And carefully cherry pick your arguments against the subject.

 

Are there questions that need answering about climate change?... it's science right.... you know what science is... yes... asking and finding answers to questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

BO, we get it. You don't buy it. Why do you feel compelled to keep repeating this? You don't buy it. So move on. Other people are conversing.

All the trollers who don't like this topic and don't agree: JUST MOVE ON, NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO READ THIS.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Regarding the "religion" article, the word religion now is near meaningless as whenever someone accepts something someone else doesn't like they go oh that's your 'religion'

I wonder if that is more common here?  Being ex-religious the obvious insult is to say someone is still being religious.  To be reminded of the hated past, its the kind of hot button topic to throw at those that have a differing opinion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I wonder if that is more common here?  Being ex-religious the obvious insult is to say someone is still being religious.  To be reminded of the hated past, its the kind of hot button topic to throw at those that have a differing opinion.

Yes, also an attempt to trigger people imo, by using that word.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

No need to be a snowflake when an opposing view is posted.

 

Apropos...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I wonder if that is more common here?  Being ex-religious the obvious insult is to say someone is still being religious.  To be reminded of the hated past, its the kind of hot button topic to throw at those that have a differing opinion.

 

Yes I've brought up this before.

 

Consider us: We've left religion, had our eyes open, and use critical thinking. So what is the greatest insult you can give to such a person when they accept something you don't? Oh you are religious, you don't see the lies these scientists are telling you.

 

The ironic thing is that I'm not left saying I believe it anyway. I can pretty much tear apart any argument BO launches at climate change, probably because he doesn't bother to educate himself on what the science actually says and therefore strawmans the shit out of it and just gets it plain wrong.

 

There are genuine discussions to be had, and JP, midnite, Dude and others have raised some interesting questions in the past. But the old 'eyeball' the water level argument is old and flawed in many ways, as is the 'data fraud' accusation.

 

PS we might need to tone down a little bit or this could head into politics realm and get shifted to ToT. Lets leave the news where it belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the obvious political element, that is part of the climate change debates, makes a percentage of people skeptical. The historical component indicates climate change has occurred many times in the earth's history, so that is a factor too.

 

Politicians want to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes. and claim its a way of limiting/reducing carbon in the atmosphere to slow down the effects of a warmer planet. 

 

I have no doubt climate change is real, but I have doubts that human's are causing it. I think the money could be better spent planning on how civilizations are going to deal with these coming changes in our planet while there is still time to do that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geezer said:

I think the obvious political element, that is part of the climate change debates, makes a percentage of people skeptical. The historical component indicates climate change has occurred many times in the earth's history, so that is a factor too.

 

Politicians want to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes. and claim its a way of limiting/reducing carbon in the atmosphere to slow down the effects of a warmer planet. 

 

I have no doubt climate change is real, but I have doubts that human's are causing it. I think the money could be better spent planning on how civilizations are going to deal with these coming changes in our planet while there is still time to do that. 

 

Yes, and at some point we are going to have to figure out what to do when the next ice age comes.

 

I think the general thought is humans are not "causing" it, but are affecting, or inducing the climate. In this case increasing CO2 levels faster than what would naturally be occurring through both positive (i.e. generating CO2) and negative (i.e. reducing CO2 reducing factors life rainforests) actions.

 

From what I've read the horse pretty much has bolted, so its a case of not continuing to 'spook' it, and to deal, as you say, with the coming changes. This incudes city design's, possibly encouraging population shift away from close proximity to coast lines etc. Food production areas might need to be looked at. For example what was once really good might become less useful, but previously poor areas become usable.

 

At the same time we need to look at other impacts we are having - plastic islands, general pollution etc. Humanity has its work cut out. But we have the resources and funds to do it, we just need the willpower and agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BO you maybe are confused with sensationalist claims coming true vs what is actually being predicted?

 

On the fraud subject I can categorically show you are wrong simply by quoting the guy you claim exposed 'data fraud' wherein he explicitly says there wasn't data fraud and that wasn't his concern.

 

Quote

Yet, you claim I cannot see it with my eyes

 

Again I'll point out your lack of comprehension. What did I actually say? "the old 'eyeball' the water level argument is old and flawed in many ways"

 

Hmm class, is this the same as saying that BO cannot "see"?

 

What am I actually saying about the eyeball argument? What is wrong when talking about global climate change of saying in my one spot this isn't happening therefore its all fake?

 

(We won't mention the numerous articles you can find of issues places in Florida are having, and steps councils are taking because of rising waters. We will ignore them all because... insurance policies not cancelled! Cherry picking?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

The fact is the water HAS NOT RISEN.  

     Says you.  I've not SEEN this water.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Now you are trying to obfuscate.  The fact is the water HAS NOT RISEN.  Keep making excuses, keep moving the goal posts.  Keep quoting talking points.  If the water truly was rising those insurance companies would cancel in a heartbeat.  NOT cherry picking.  Are you saying the media is on the level? The media and the scientific community are in it for one thing, MONEY.  Money for research, money for readership, money to feather their own nest.  When I see the cities slipping below the waterline permanently, then and ONLY then will I buy it.  Other than that, YOU are either an apologist defending a religion, or you are naive. 

Googled Florida flooding and in 10 seconds found this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/sea-level-rise-high-tides-sunny-day-flooding-coastal-cities-2018-4//?r=AU&IR=T#miami-florida-in-the-last-10-years-flooding-events-have-increased-in-frequency-by-400-in-florida-5

"Miami, Florida: In the last 10 years, flooding events have increased in frequency by 400% in Florida."

"In Miami, the sea level has risen about 10 inches from 1900 to today."

"Miami Beach is trying to engineer solutions to sea level rise, installing pumps and raising roads and buildings."

You don't have to submerge the whole state for the problem to be apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

When I see the cities slipping below the waterline permanently, then and ONLY then will I buy it. 

 

And when a creationist sees a crocodile turn into a duck he will believe evolution.

 

When you understand the problem with the above you may begin to understand the problem with your statement.

 

Also regarding insurance, cancelling is not the only option. There are other options and some of these are in force depending on your location in NZ. One option is to increase the premium to cover the cost of claims. However if the financial people figure out that even with increases that the insurance companies will make a loss on certain claims they can EXCLUDE certain events.

 

"Acts of God" is one thing that's excluded from many of our policies. They will define this, and change as they see fit. "Excluded from your insurance is damage from floods, earthquakes and rising water levels."

 

Well fuck me, am I covered for anything?

 

Yes if you break a window we will cover that.

 

Great

 

So waiting for cities to slip under water and insurance to wholesale cancel is missing the point... probably because of your strawman version of the effects of climate change. Also Al Gore's version... who let that shmuck give lectures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

Googled Florida flooding and in 10 seconds found this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/sea-level-rise-high-tides-sunny-day-flooding-coastal-cities-2018-4//?r=AU&IR=T#miami-florida-in-the-last-10-years-flooding-events-have-increased-in-frequency-by-400-in-florida-5

"Miami, Florida: In the last 10 years, flooding events have increased in frequency by 400% in Florida."

"In Miami, the sea level has risen about 10 inches from 1900 to today."

"Miami Beach is trying to engineer solutions to sea level rise, installing pumps and raising roads and buildings."

You don't have to submerge the whole state for the problem to be apparent.

 

 

FAKE NEWS

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

GEE....REALLY?

     So we're agreed.  I've not personally seen what you're talking about so it doesn't exist.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

More obfucsation.  You keep trying to convince me, just like an apologist.  Again, when I see the water rise, then and ONLY THEN, that is my bottom line.  You keep repeating what you say and I don't buy what you're saying any more than before.  

 

^ Triggered right wing snowflake :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as OP,  another True Gorbeliever chimes in.

 

No real questions, NO obvious answers, still another alarmist newsie, this concerning those of the WE who give less than a single fuck about why our WE minds think as they do concerning THEIR correct version of world changes.

 

Give me Amused for 500 Alex!

 

kL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

No, I am just being sarcastic and smart-ass because I know you were. 

 

I am pretty sure he was being serious. MWC and I had a whole debate once on whether NZ existed because he didn't see it, so if he says he doesn't believe you because he can't see it then he is dead serious.

 

No use arguing with him - you can't change his mind. I tried and failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

No, I am just being sarcastic and smart-ass because I know you were. 

     Which part?

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I am pretty sure he was being serious. MWC and I had a whole debate once on whether NZ existed because he didn't see it, so if he says he doesn't believe you because he can't see it then he is dead serious.

 

No use arguing with him - you can't change his mind. I tried and failed.

     Don't start on your fantasy land being real again.  Me eye orbs ain't buyin' what you is sellin' buddy.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I am pretty sure he was being serious. MWC and I had a whole debate once on whether NZ existed because he didn't see it, so if he says he doesn't believe you because he can't see it then he is dead serious.

 

No use arguing with him - you can't change his mind. I tried and failed.

 

I've never seen Pensacola. Anyone who claims it's real has been bought off ... by someone or other. :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.