What exactly do anthropocentric climate-change deniers believe is the reason a decently-sized majority of the world's...

what exactly do anthropocentric climate-change deniers believe is the reason a decently-sized majority of the world's scientists and academies would promote "false science"? like what exactly is the supposed benefit of creating some mass conspiracy and overstating the effects of pollution, which are already bad enough as it is?

all I ever get is vague answers with a slew of buzzwords like "they", "political", "liberals", "them", "paid", "biased". wondering if any of the more rational denier (if such as thing exists) have something substantial to back up their claim that its all a hoax

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SpDimHnFohE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>supposed benefit
Carbon taxes, my man. That would be de-facto control of the economy.

>what exactly do anthropocentric climate-change deniers believe is the reason a decently-sized majority of the world's scientists and academies would promote "false science"?

Money, power, and ideological control.

Unless you are retarded, it is quite easy to understand how pushing the false narrative of climate change would create all three of those for scientists and allied organisations.

Scientists in charge of the economy instead of wealthy investors.. eeeeeeeeekkkkkkkk

confirmation bias is already a strong thing, and in climate change confirmation bias is even encourage, since if a specialist in climate change disprove it... well you might find yourself without a job, or with your funds cut.

>Scientists in charge of the economy
>Use techno babble to deceive the population into an authoritarian control grid
Sounds like the plot to a dystopian nightmare.

You wanted to pay less pensions, now listen to the AI overlord.

just say you want the tax money to feed your minority army to kill us. At least you're honest because we know you don't care about conservation, gay or animal rights if you let brown or darkers in.

As a scientist either you take the millions of dollar funding and claim its real or you get black listed and your career is forever over. Which would you take?

Yes, comrade. We must not exceed our carbon allotment or we will be punished.

Lmao, you're fucking joking, right?
>U.S. Federal Reserve has it's reach in nearly every single central bank on Earth already
>The Earth is literally collapsing under the weight of 7.5 billion people who all want to live the 'American Dream' which in itself was only the result of post WWII prosperity because the rest of the developed world was rubble
>Scientists have been warning about Climate Change and it's implications on Western civilization for decades, with the first studies being carried out by Exxon and Shell
>Already starting to see widespread droughts and famines across the world
>Thinks that tens of thousands of scientists across the world who have decades in their chosen fields are all collaborating because of carbon taxes

WEW LADS

>Be scientist with PhD in something that doesn't have a career field
>Live off grants
>Collude with gov't officials to create a tax out of thin air; literally
>Promote "consensus" to get tax passed
>collect dem cheques

Wasn't hard, was it? How do you think we have a Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Transportation, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Dept. of Energy, NOAA, PBS, and Internal Revenue Service to pay for it all?

There ya have it.

> carbon tax will fix anything

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW lad

Wait, are you using a computer? Do you heat your home? Do you drive a car? Pretty hypocritical desu. In fact you should probably kys right now for the carbon offset.

it happens very naturally. 'scientists' are just normal people, who believe what other people like them believe in order to go along to get along.

for all the reddit tier rick n morty 'dude, science!' 'wtf i luv science bro! :DDDDDDDD' shit that gets thrown around, none of those people actually give a fuck about truth or reality, science is literally, LITERALLY, just a religious opinion to them.

So you admit global warming is destroying the earth

if anything it'll improve it.

lol this reminds me of a picture in a book about "global warming" which showed smoke coming of a nuclear power facility chimneys....except that the smoke was actually steam but people don't care about facts. Fact: nuclear energy is the best option. The more advanced a society becomes the more energy it will consume and primitive wind technology wastes vast swathes of land. That land is required for producing food due to the worlds exploding population.

This is what people confuse. Its whether or not we are the ones doing it. Imagine if we were 100 years before the ice age hit, we would be all MUH CARBON EMISSIONS ARE FREEZING THE OZONE but in reality the earth was gonna do that no matter who's on the surface

"Scientists" working for the same institutions that teach people boys can become girls by taking a pill and chopping their dick off.

Its ironic how ungreen "green" technology is.

...

>nuclear energy is the best option.
This I agree with. Except we should go for based Thorium molten salt reactors instead of continuing to fall for the solid fuel meme.

>what exactly do anthropocentric climate-change deniers believe is the reason a decently-sized majority of the world's scientists and academies would promote "false science"? like what exactly is the supposed benefit of creating some mass conspiracy and overstating the effects of pollution, which are already bad enough as it is?

CO2 isn't pollution.
So why did you just call it pollution?

Because if you didn't call it pollution other people would doubt you and doubt your character.

Why would a publisher reject a paper that while scientifically sound cast doubt on one of the base of global warming (ice cores)?
They said it would be unethical to do so.

It's not an organized conspiracy it's just a group of people all reaching the same outcome from the same rules. Publish papers that say climate change and you get funding for research. Doubt it and be cast out as a Holocaust Denier, sorry, climate change denier.

Why did you say denier rather than skeptic?
~
We know they change data to better fit political agendas.
We know the models they use produce only what they want (by feeding in random data and always getting the same result).

The current cost to 'fight climate change' is tipping over at 1.25 trillion a year and is expected over the next 20 years to reduce expected warming by 1/20th of a degree C.
That's a fucking terrible return on investment.

You misspelled climate change
You misspelled anthropogenic climate change
You misspelled we can't stop it

You want to talk about real solutions like nuclear energy lmk otherwise fuck off with your carbon tax

Trudeau and Wynne are fucking canada over royally. I got a coop in a public sector infrastructure company and the pure stupidity, laziness, and spinelessness of the management never ceases to astound me. They don't dare do anything which might make a handful of liberal SJWs upset (eg spending millions building an elevator at one station when there's literally another station with an existing elevator 200 fucking meters down the road) or spending millions appeasing the unions who literally say "laziness is not a reason for someone to be fired". America is lucky to have someone like trump who doesn't back down when the autistic screeching begins.

>what exactly do anthropocentric climate-change deniers believe is the reason a decently-sized majority of the world's scientists and academies would promote "false science"?
Money.

these things are difficult to develop with so few reactors operational. if we had 100 more, there'd be vastly more resources for R&D

its just steam that comes from the stacks of nuclear power plants

it isn't pollution

Real Deal Answer.
the global warming touts always claim "it's settled science" but when asked HOW MUCH global warming is caused by human action, they cant give an answer.

if you dont know How Much, then it is NOT settled science.

the IPCC is backpedalling on their claims, numerous "reputable institutions" have been caught engaging in academic fraud on this issue, and several important nations have withdrawn their support for the IPCC's reports based on deliberate misrepresentations of data.
no explanation for the current climate changes being in sync with milenkovic cycles, no explanation for the glacial cycles, no explanation for the fact that we are still in a clacial stage, but approaching a predicted full interglacial event, no explanation for martian global warming from solar radiance increases, etc etc etc.

if the science is settled, why are there so many questions you simply cant answer?

Good thing you've got plenty of cheap coal to burn in the meantime. Gotta get that economy rolling so you guys can fund the high density energy sources and take us all to the stars. If anyone can do it, it's you guys. We'll be ready and waiting to make things you can mount to your spaceships so we can say we helped.

> Y2K
> Pandemic
> Literally nothing, sadly.

at first i thought this was an aggressive post, then i realized you're just a Canadian and this is how you express friendship.

>like what exactly is the supposed benefit of creating some mass conspiracy and overstating the effects of pollution

1. Removing production from the Western countries (who listen to them) while not affecting anyone else (who doesn't)

2. Money. They're already doing a "carbon tax". It's theft from the working class, taken by the state and given to the wealthy. Communism.

BFFs, bud.

>carbon taxes cant be motivation because federal reserve, somehow
>The Earth is literally collapsing under the weight of 7.5 billion people
>literally collapsing
>literally
>scientist have been warning us about climate change for decades
False. First the were warning us about global cooling, then it was save the rain forest, then it was save the whales, then it was the hole in the ozone layer, then it was global warming, then it was climate change.
We still have rain forests and whales, and the hole in the ozone layer cleared up nicely
>tens of thousands of scientists believe in climate change
When surveyed, the most common is reason they have for believing in climate change is a perceived scientific consensus.
The consensus is due to the perception of a consensus. And pay attention to how they treat people who challenge the hypothesis (you know, an integral step in the scientific method.) They're labeled "deniers" the same way women were label witches in Salem.

Yes, co2 is a greenhouse gas. But when you dig into their models co2 isn't their primary driver of projected climate change, the secondary effects are--implying a reinforcing feedback loop with a runaway effect. If that were true, it already would've run away a long time ago. It's much more likely its a self correcting feedback effect, especially considering the fact that plants become much more efficient at photosynthesis in higher co2 concentrations. The more co2 there is, the better plants are at turning it into oxygen. A fact completely ignored by their models.

Keep in mind the democrats want to tax carbon, not carbon-dioxide. They want to tax the element carbon, as if the fundamental building block to life on earth is a problem that must be corrected by paying penance to the federal government to be used for more gibs.

The ozone hole was corrected by a change in the common chemicals we emitted. That chemistry is sound.

acc is not science, so when you ask why i'm not listening to the scientists it's because you're not presenting any to us.

>1970's
WE ARE HEADED FOR AN ICEAGE
>2000
WE ARE HEADED FOR GLOBAL WARMING NO MORE ICE CAPS
>2010
WE ARE NOW CALLING IN CLIMATE CHANGE AND IT WILL HAPPEN AT SOME POINT
>2017
IT'S STILL HAPPENING YOU NEED TO PAY A TAX

>First the were warning us about global cooling
This December, the arctic polar vortex spilled quite a bit
>then it was save the rain forest
It got saved for a while, now that it isn't in the limelight it's being fucked in the arse again

That said, yes, the democrats want to tax carbon, and because that they want it to be as widely used as possible, actually worsening the situation even further.

The solution must be the deregulation in order to more efficient energy solutions to arise. Musk is /ourguy/ with this with his decentralised energy banks. Then nuclear restrictions must be lifted so investments can be embiggened bigly.

Seriously guys, the returns are gonna be hyuge.

See pic related for an argument that the current path is not the right one.

To more directly address your concerns though, there's a couple of points to address. These are all as I understand them, so anyone who can correct me, feel free.

1) There's never been a model to accurately predict the rise in global temperatures. Even errors of a degree or two centigrade are enormous when talking about the size of the temperature rise. Additionally, the Climategate Wikileaks and other leakers have shown that the data is regularly scrubbed after the fact to fit the narrative. The models themselves are fairly primative as well as they require huge amounts of processing power for the computational fluid modeling, heat transfer, mass transfer, etc. Grid sizes in the kilometers are not uncommon.

2. Carbon-based warming occurs on a logarithmic scale. Carbon also makes up a tiny percentage of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (the largest of which I believe is actually water vapor). Predictions of catastrophic warming due to a feedback loop of increased carbon = increased water vapor are, as far as I know, unsubstantiated and have not been accurately predicted. Regarding the logarithmic warming by carbon, that means each additional carbon atom added warms the atmosphere less than the previous one.

3. On a long enough geological scale (i.e. not just since the 1800's as the climate graphs always show), we've been coming out of an ice age for a while. It's not a surprise that over time the temperature has risen. Most people don't doubt that. What they do doubt is how much humans actually impact it.

4. Increased carbon content in the air can actually be a good thing. It's plant food, and more plants means more food for us, which we'll need to stave off global hunger as the population rises. Additionally, times of higher carbon density tend to be the most biodiverse. A quick google search shows that the dinosaurs breathed air with about 5x as much carbon dioxide as now.

(con't)

5. The 97% meme is apparently bullshit. What defines a "climate scientist" in the surveys that were done is pretty much anyone who says they are, which logically would be the people most inclined to look favorably on the climate change meme.

6. Renewables, for all the hype around them, almost always have to be backed up by fossil based generators. When a solar plant or wind plant stops producing, people still expect their power to be on. So to maintain the load demands, we back them up with gas turbines or diesels that, because they are not operating continuously, are less efficient with higher emissions.

7. The benefits of the cheap, efficient, scaleable, reliable energy that fossil fuels, and only fossil fuels at the moment provide, far outweigh the risks of future climate issues. The quality of life for people is directly related to their country's use of fossil fuels. People are safer from the environment as more fossil fuels are used because we are better able to control our local climate.

nice effort post. thanks

You don't do research without grant funding, when you write a grant you write what the people with the money want to read. The people giving out money for climate research want man made climate change.

youtube.com/watch?v=SpDimHnFohE