$1B Climate Change Denial Industry: Getting Rich Telling Lies, Destroying Humanity...

[anonymoose]

Hello anonymoose,



Scientists know better than to claim proof of something which is not proven in the literal scientific sense, which is different than the common sense.

Thanks for your answer. You did not provide a link to any scientific article proving man made climate change.
This tells me you do not rely on science but rely on liberal political consensus based on an agenda. And please show me where scientists claim proof of AGW. Like you failed to provide a link to a scientific article I doubt you'll be able to find where a, as in one scientist, claims proof of AGW. Many believe it, many don't and IMO truly objective scientists would admit he simply doesn't know. That's all we have for now.

Both evolution and AGW are essentially proven.

Evolution is a viable theory based on fossil records that correlate with DNA evidence. Unfortunately it will probably never become Scientific Law but there are many good theories that are not Law.
AGW is a hypothesis which has never had consistent verifiable testing to become Scientific Theory, much less Scientific Law. It certainly has never been proven. I can tell you've had no scientific background otherwise you would never say AGW is proven without backing it up with something other than a liberal political consensus. If it has I'd like to see it, at minimum in one peer reviewed scientific article. An article from Highlights doesn't count. Just one, that's all I require.
And you saying it's proven counts for nothing.

[Gonzomin]

After decades of cleaner and cleaner air, due to environmental regulations, it is reversing. https://www.apnews.com/d3515b79af1246d08f7978f026c9092b This is what the rightys must want.

[PoliTalker]

Hello anonymoose,

Thanks for your answer. You did not provide a link to any scientific article proving man made climate change. [and I'm not gonna]
This tells me you do not rely on science but rely on liberal political consensus based on an agenda. [You told yourself that, not me] And please show me where scientists claim proof of AGW. [don't hold your breath] Like you failed to provide a link to a scientific article I doubt you'll be able to find where a, as in one scientist, claims proof of AGW. [never said I would] Many believe it, many don't and IMO truly objective scientists would admit he simply doesn't know. That's all we have for now.

Conservatives don't require proof that they are personally at risk of being attacked by a criminal. They go ahead and buy a gun just in case. The are hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. Because hoping for the best while preparing for the worst, without proof, is wisdom.

Evolution is a viable theory based on fossil records that correlate with DNA evidence. Unfortunately it will probably never become Scientific Law but there are many good theories that are not Law.
AGW is a hypothesis which has never had consistent verifiable testing to become Scientific Theory, much less Scientific Law. It certainly has never been proven. I can tell you've had no scientific background otherwise you would never say AGW is proven without backing it up with something other than a liberal political consensus. If it has I'd like to see it, at minimum in one peer reviewed scientific article. An article from Highlights doesn't count. Just one, that's all I require.
And you saying it's proven counts for nothing.

I was watching a nature show on PBS featuring Sir David Attenborough. He said it is proved. Proof enough for ME!

I am guessing conservatives just can't watch nature shows any more. Nearly all of them talk about climate change these days.

[Cinnabar]

"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, international governmental bodies, relevant research institutes and scientific societies are in unison in saying that climate change is real, that it’s a problem, and that we should probably do something about it now, not later. And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples’ minds that climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal.

Actually, it’s not “for some reason” that people are confused. There’s a very obvious reason. There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.

According to Brulle’s research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues."

The Billion Dollar Climate Change Denial Industry

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

The more sickening thing about this issue is that the folks who are not profiting and suffering the consequences are denying the science and enabling the culprits. We are being destroyed by the greed of scumbags and the stupidity of the willing tools.

[gfm7175]

Climate Change is real.

First off, you need to define the term in a non-circular way. Circular definitions [ie, climate change is a change in climate] are meaningless and will yield void arguments.

Secondly, how have you determined that this circularly defined buzzword is really happening? If you believe that the Earth is warming, how have you determined that it is indeed warming?

It is human caused.

Is that so?

We have to change our ways.

No, we don't.

Give it up already.

Give WHAT up?

For the sake of our children and grandchildren...

Pascal's Wager Fallacy.

[gfm7175]

Even Trump's own EPA administrator - aka, the guy that Trump thought was the best in the nation to manage our environmental problems - testified to congress that human-induced climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed in the long term, although he did not think it was one of our most pressing and top priorities right now.

Good for him. He's wrong.

That is pretty much a stunning admission that decades of global warming denial was a complete hoax.

Global Warming ITSELF is the hoax, not the denial of it.

I think your post in insightful, because I have never thought climate denial really had anything to do with science or with sound environmental management.

Nobody denies climate. They instead deny the unfounded claims that the Earth is warming. There is currently no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.

For one thing, a lot of people have become famous or rich from the Climate Change Denial Industry. People who otherwise do not have the talent or wherewithal to become rich and famous.

So? A lot of people have also become famous or rich from the "Global Warming is gonna kill us all" hoax. Your point?

Secondly, there are trillions of barrels of untapped oil still in the ground which has not yet been burned. The oligarchy is not going to walk away from that kind of money without a fight to the death.

Marxist Democrats want the USA to become an Oligarchy, NOT Conservative Republicans.

Lastly, there is some element of emotional investment in climate denial.

Nobody denies climate.

Teabaggers have been pre-conditioned emotionally to reject everything that is perceived to be liberal.

Yup. Liberally applying policy does not yield good results.

One single example - Trump violating, and pulling of of the Iran nuclear agreement, an international agreement that was actually working, but Trump wanted out of it simply because Obama negotiated it.

Nope, it was one of the worst deals we've ever entered into. I'm glad that Trump yanked the chain on that one.

There are Climate Deniers who have emotionally invested themselves in denial for decades.

Nobody denies climate.

And I put the probability at exactly zero percent that, at this point, they are every going to confess that they were wrong.

They aren't wrong. YOU are wrong. The Global Warming hoax outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

I believe some of them would rather see harm come to their children and grandchildren than admit they were wrong to anonymous liberals they will never meet on an obscure message board.

Pascal's Wager Fallacy.

[gfm7175]

For our own sake too. We only have until 2031. 12 yrs.

IF that long...

[gfm7175]

Makes ya wonder how these people sleep at night.

I crawl onto my bed, get wrapped up in my blanket, lay there with my eyes closed, and then I eventually fall asleep.

Why don't they care about their children and grandchildren?

I don't have any children, but if I did, I would care about them. I do, however, have two godchildren that I care about.

Why don't they care about humanity.

I DO care about humanity.

BASIC wisdom:

If there is a chance that you will face a destruction, it is best to prepare for it.

Even if it is not a certainty that it will occur.

The wisdom goes like this.

Prepare for the worst; Hope for the best.

Denial is foolish.

Not wisdom, a logical fallacy. Pascal's Wager Fallacy, to be precise.

[gfm7175]

Most deniers have guns.

Let's just assume that they do, for argument's sake...

Ask them why.

They come in handy for killing varmints. It is fun to target shoot. Lots of people use them for hunting. If there were ever a need for self defense, they would come in handy.

They are preparing for the worst possibility, that they will be attacked by some stranger meaning to do them harm.

I suppose some of them are... Others like myself just want to kill varmints and target shoot.

They hope they never have to use them.

To kill another human being? Yes, I hope to never have to do that.

Most gun owners never have to use their guns to defend themselves.

Okay. Personally, I haven't had to as of yet.

They are preparing for the worst, hoping for the best.

It's not even a thought in my mind, really.

[gfm7175]

It would be easier to accept AGW if there were any documented scientific proof that CO2 were capable of whats claimed of it.

The main problem is that these people think that they know about what they actually know nothing about... They think they can accurately measure global CO2 content, but they actually can't, since there aren't near enough uniformly spaced and simultaneously read CO2 stations in existence.

They think they can measure global sea level, but they actually can't, as there is no valid reference point to make use of.

They think they can accurately measure global temperature, but they actually can't, since there aren't near enough uniformly spaced and simultaneously read thermometers in existence.

They think they can instead get these temperature readings via satellite, but they can't, since they have no clue what the emissivity of Earth is, and to know emissivity, they first need to know temperature.


Their claims about CO2 (and its magick) regularly reject the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law, thus rejecting science.


Until they can get past those hurdles (for starters), they are simply talking out of their asses...

[gfm7175]

Hello Celticguy,



The proof is there but it involves believing in science.

Does that make it a problem?

Can you kindly present this "proof" that AGW is happening??

[PoliTalker]

Hello and happy first day of summer gfm7175,

First off, you need to define the term in a non-circular way. Circular definitions [ie, climate change is a change in climate] are meaningless and will yield void arguments.

Secondly, how have you determined that this circularly defined buzzword is really happening? If you believe that the Earth is warming, how have you determined that it is indeed warming?


Is that so?


No, we don't.


Give WHAT up?


Pascal's Wager Fallacy.

Nice wall you've built.

-to protect you from the truth, from wisdom.

Sad.

[gfm7175]

Carbon dioxide has been experimentally proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to have greenhouse gas properties.

CO2 is incapable of heating the Earth. Heat does not flow from cold to hot; it only flows from hot to cold. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This has been known for a century, it is known by all informed people, and Exxon's own scientists knew it when they secretly concluded four decades ago that burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause the planet to relentlessly warm.

There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such an analysis. See statistical mathematics.

[PoliTalker]

Not wisdom, a logical fallacy. Pascal's Wager Fallacy, to be precise.

Total wisdom. Ignorance of it risks the future of humanity and many other species.

[gfm7175]

It just means you are uninformed and should not be participating in this conversation, if it is news to you that science has experimentally shown and unequivocally proven that CO2 has greenhouse gas properties. This was proven about a century ago.


Its not my job to teach and educate you about widely known and understood scientific principles of earth science and atmospheric science. Especially principles that have been known about for about a century.

The laws of thermodynamics have been around for quite a while now too, ya know... Why are you rejecting them by claiming that CO2 (a colder object) can heat Earth (a warmer object)?