Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Sep 25, 2019.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I am not a denier and I don't hate Al Gore but I think he is a hypocrite.
    Look at the responses here...generalisations and hateful adhominims... I find it rather funny that none of you seem to notice the things that you see as so wrong with your opposition your ignorantly demonstrate as ok for your attack.
    And solutions offered to do something about a very real problem are never raised...issues like cutting out tractor pulling or motor racing, or to address the wasteful use of energy...think of the office buildings with lights and fridges on all night..think of Las Vagas etc etc etc and to say consensus is valid science can only bring an obvious response from those who believe science is not decided by a democracy.

    The very use of the word "denier" is so wrong in my view as I see it a miserable effort to link folk to the most horrible event in history which to me is very wrong.

    I do not find it odd that folk reject the notion of climate change when hypocrites like Al Gore are held up as champion or such an inappropriate term as "denier" is used in such a hateful fashion to demonise anyone who suspects many vested interests are looking to profit from an impending crisis.

    Threads like this may make you all feel good but really look at all of you acting more irrational than is appropriate.

    And so as usual I find myself alone unable to agree with either side.

    My suggestion would be to first address the wasteful un necessary consumption and ask why folk find the emotional outbursts like we witness here cause them to question the science.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    And follow the money...who stands to profit from the rejection of fossil fuel?
    I find it hilarious that greenies who once would attend "ban the bomb" rallies now see nuclear power as the solution and consider all we need to do is substitute coal rather than first demand less greedy and wasteful consumption by so many.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Now it's a crisis?
    ever more shrill and strident
    from alarm to catastrophe to crisis
    where do they go from here ?
    There must be an easier way to terrify children, the poorly educated and the feeble minded?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I accept your observation and admit my use of the word "crisis" probably was not perfect.
    Moreover I believe if climate change is man made that all we can do is figure out how to live in the world predicted by those who find the word crisis more than appropriate.
    And I ask each of wasteful are many lights do you have on at many tv sets running at you turn on the heater or put on a jumper...
    I grew up in a world where there was one light on in the house that being in the room you were in...the car was never used if you could walk or use public transport and we used a very small fridge.
    Folk were falling over themselves to get rid of the incardesent light bulb never thinking for one moment that it was more about marketing than saving the planet.
    Look at the carbon foot print of just car much fuel burnt to go nowhere..the energy needed to produce one race car, think of the tyres...ten in a weekend...oh and the Super cars for the rich..who really needs 3000 HP...the giant boats...why is it that replacing coal will fix coal really the first problem to address?
    Look at the homes with black roofs...maybe outlawing same would see the airconditioner having to work less...
    The fear induced by climate change scare tactics has produced an irrational responce, in my view...but look around you yourself and those around you and notice the waste and the mindless greedy consumption before you rant about folk not believing all those supporting the climate science...
    Most of all follow the money.
    I use solar and batteries and maintain 300 acres of forest and use only one light..because that is all you need..the trees are not to save the planet but to ensure some trees remain when all are being cut down either side and to provide a home for some of the poor animals with no homes.
    Rather than complain about folk why not start a list of all the things that could be done to save energy and avoid greedy consumption.
    Quantum Quack and sculptor like this.
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Forests are good for the environment and good for the mind.
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    No, the "conspiracy" is that scientists are faking the warming data just to make a better world. This will cost people. And selfish people don't like that. So it's a conspiracy.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And good for your lungs.
    Quantum Quack and sculptor like this.
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    sculptor likes this.
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    There are a lot of issues being intermixed here. Saying that "the earth has always undergone change and always will" is not the point. That's not the change that is being discussed. It's the speed with which the change is occurring that is what is being discussed.

    It's factual. It's not just a personal opinion that one can either agree or not agree with.

    Whether one's personal consumption is excessive or "greedy" is also beside the point as is worrying about bad policies that might be ineffective and only cost society more money. That's a valid concern but it is beside the issue of whether the change is real. It is.

    Most people probably aren't that inefficient with their energy usage because it comes at high personal cost. It's not about black roofs. Black roofs are good in the winter and less effective in the summer. In general, it's more expensive to heat than to cool.

    It's also not a matter of worrying excessively about what your neighbor is doing that you disapprove of. If your neighbor leaves a few extra lights on and has no kids and you have 4 kids, their carbon footprint is still probably less than yours.

    You disapprove of their hobby but might not realize that your own hobby is just as "wasteful" in their eyes.

    Where I live, high electric rates keeps most power usage pretty efficient. It's too expensive to do otherwise.

    The biggest issues are transportation and industrial usage not one person taking a longer shower than another person would approve of.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    No..very much the point...think of the reductions called for...I expect they could be reached simply by being less than wasteful.
    Think about it.
    I never said it wasn't. But the hypocracy is also real.
    However if it is such an important issue why is the only solution nuclear power...
    Look at your cities and tell me how not turning off some lights won't help...afterall remember how evil the incandescent bulb was...look at a world map at night...really could we not do with half...and look at Las Vegas's a joke. The world is going to fry and not one whimper...
    I disagree and observation will prove me right. Most people are very wasteful.
    You really don't get it...waste!!!!!
    Oh come on... Look at drag racing, tractor pulling, racing planes, racing boats, folk having 3000 HP is not only about running costs but the price of something reflects its carbon foot print...and for what...if we have a problem let's demand the greedy folk pull their horns in...otherwise don't count me in as I am not that silly that I will bail the boat while other fools are drilling holes in the bottom to let the water out. My gear cost $10, 000 good for many years now tell me what does it costs to race a car at even entry level.
    The roof thing is but one example...and where I live winter is not that cold, warmth is a jumper away..yet the black roofs are before practicality...and perhaps rather than generally oppose all my suggestions and observations realise that you are trying to argue uphill..but go ahead tell me why we need not worry about waste and greedy consumption but we are to take seriously calls to do something..sure do what..go nuclear of course...think about your reaction is ignoring reality.
    Perhaps but there is more world than just where you live and like it or not most are wasteful and greedy.
    Look at the city at night..each floor has a fridge with a litre of milk and each floor more lights on than is necessary..and you can make a list of waste and greedy a list that should be made well before crying NP will save us. Don't be a Chicken Little.
    I do more than my share, and I could if I wanted buy a sports car and a speed boat if I sold some trees. I have 10,000 do the sums. What is a tree worth? $10 maybe $20...well to me they are priceless.
    Nonsense ...if the crisis is as presented everything is on the table.

    And here is something...cut the military budget of the USA to only double that of its nearest rival and you save 400 billion of to work out the carbon footprint there?
    I am sorry if I sound upset but I am..all the doom etc yet we can't turn off some lights..we can't legislate to restrict lighting, or racing or anything at all it seems and folk wonder why no one takes the climate change "crisis" seriously.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Everyone is nowadays if you look hard enough.
    Yep. There are a lot of solutions.
    Holocaust deniers denied the Holocaust; climate change deniers deny climate change. What they are denying is not at all the same - but their approach is identical. It's the most fundamental description of their approach to the issue. I guess we could let them choose a politically correct word, but I prefer accuracy.

    Don't want to be called a denier of X? Don't deny X.
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I think the military budget should be cut in half as well. Not primarily because of the carbon footprint but that is a side benefit as well.

    Lights in most office buildings do go down at night. They even go down in the frozen dinners aisle in my grocery store until someone walks down that isle. It's the same for the street lights on other than main streets in my area.

    Are you suggesting that expensive cars and boats be illegal?

    Going nuclear isn't the only option. In the U.S. it's not even being used to the degree that it probably should be used.

    There are things that are wasteful and that provide entertainment and due to the cost they are minimally used as a percentage of where the real pollution comes from.

    The fees for such things are expensive. The other option is to make them illegal. Is that what you are suggesting?

    Should black roofs be made illegal? Roofs are many colors from my personal observations. Light colors shingles, black, red tile, etc.

    Decisions made on an emotional basis are rarely the best decisions.
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well I feel that the use of " denier" could be limited to the Holocaust out of some respect that I can not clearly identify. And irrespective I have no doubt the choice of the word by the global warming crew was deliberate and to think for one moment that use of the word would not be emotive would be niave...some political correct word should be used..can you tell me the only word available that is suitable is "denier" ... really the choice was and is sinister. Why not sceptic ????...heck where is the thesaurus...let's make a list of alternative many will we find? And the more we find the more one can question the use of "denier" ...the fact is the word in its application to climate change does, believe it or not, upset some that so difficult to understand? It upset me and I just do not get upset over stuff like that...and what upsets me is the obvious deliberate selection of that word to promote an agendah and ignoring the fact that many folk will understandably be's use is slimy and again does the cause more harm than opinion of course but near everyone I talk to mention how slimy using denier is....
    You see I am concerned, I live doing my best and it is very upsetting to see the NP lobby pushing their shit as the green saviour... and more upsetting that folk can not see that's about the money and really very few are concerned but only see opportunity to make a buck...

    And seeing I am having a rant...coal should be saved to produce all the other stuff it is used's not going to go away it has many uses... Save it it's too precious to waste boiling water...Uranium same s... it for when at some point in the future we need to leave the planet it will be the best fuel to power our migration.
    Of course you are right...and you really do not have to look hard at all...I ask myself everytime I critize or judge..two things I really need to as no one cares...and...but do you do what you see as bad in often I do..but few would ask those questions of themselves.
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Rampant consumerism, will of course, have to stop...
    Reminds me of a friend I used to video talk to in the UK.
    Her house was 1200 years old, made of stone and very cozy and reasonably modern appointed. Apart from occassional repair, the ongoing cost is minimal.
    Mine, on the other hand was 60 years old and due for replacement.
    Say it get's replaced or rebuilt twice every century. That makes it about 24 times to one and counting.
    Using cast iron cook ware instead of disposable alloy pans etc.
    Boots that can be repaired instead of dumped.
    And so on....
    Thinking long term, sustainability, symbiosis that goes well beyond the grave instead of immediacy and short term.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well that is great but it is not what I see. More of the same please.
    As I said look at a world photo at night...the message has yet to get out there.
    Why not???
    Why not if the crisis is as bad as presented should we not put the future of Humanity before fools who need 3000 HP cars for their amusement...look it either a real big problem and needs drastic action or it's not..what is it ..not that bad that we need to address waste and fools who pick their car because it makes lots of noise...or do we need to get serious or do we just need a new tax and neat slogans on t shirts.
    Some time ago some "foundation" came out with all the places to put the water desalinators and the NP plants ... result NP was a given because the argument went very fast to.." we don't want it here..anywhere else but here".. so this publication appears from goodness knows where pushing NP to save the planet...what a sneaky move and then a barrage of global warming propaganda...presenting NP as the answer. ... And a campaigne that Australians have the biggest carbon foot print in the make everyone feel guilty and roll over...all 24 million of us causing the planets death...BS all from NP lobby.
    No making things illegal that may save the planet would be crazy...keep the making things illegal approach to serious stuff like having a little know the really serious stuff.
    There are only two shades of and white.
    Yes with the same BS vigor that was applied to the incandescent light bulb.
    Tell me where is the emotion?
    The only emotion I detect comes from those who wring their hands and rant at how stupid "deniers" are yet unprepared to consume less, or think that minisimg waste has any merit...if the problem is serious get real ...too long a shower..shoot them...well a couple of warning shots in the legs first time..I am not unreasonable.
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    If we stop all drinking that might be a good first step, don't you think?
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Now I know you are pulling my chain..but I guess I deserve it.

    A good first step would be to address waste and greedy consumption.

    Second step would be rather than call folk "deniers" to realise their concerns are legitimate when they see a hypocritical world with the rich drilling holes in the boat whilst demanding others bail faster.

    Honestly..look at All Gore how good for the credibility of the movement of he practiced what he preached.

    Or that mug out here..forget his name..but got Australian of the year for his climate change input and buys a water front property...seems he did not really believe sea levels were rising after all...that sort of thing...and most of all drop the "denier" insult.
  22. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member


    There's something to be said for the prior systems and units of measurement which offered real-world referents, though the implications are undoubtedly lost on most people.

    0.1 horsepower indefinitely--so how many indentured servants, and for how long...? Or, suppose the iPhones which alleged humans deem necessary to replace every few months or so were priced/valued in terms Chinese slave labor hours, or number and variety of species driven to extinction, and so forth...

    Unfortunately, even that would have little impact on behaviors and attitudes as an alarming percentage of... people, I guess, seem to only give a shit about that which affects them personally, or the select few other people (always and only human ones, of course) that they profess to care about.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    "Greed" sounds more like a religious term. What is "greed"? If someone has a lot of money should they live as if they made $40k a year (by law)? To someone that can't afford food someone with $10k in astronomy gear would be "greedy", right?

    To refer to someone with a lot of money as "greedy" is usually just a preface to espousing a plan to "distribute" that money. In other words, you make more than me and you are greedy if you don't give me some of that money.

    Is it "wasteful" if someone has more than someone else? Should everyone be required to live in the same size house?

    Whatever the nuclear energy industry in Australia proposes is not the same as "denying" the science involved in climate changes.

    Calling someone a "climate denier" only bothers someone who is "denying" mainstream science. Being upset with the nuclear industry and the names that they use is no reason to refuse to accept the fact that man is affecting global climate changes.

    This is like refusing to accept gravity because someone called you a name that you don't like and you're going to continue to doubt gravity until they stop calling you a name.

Share This Page