Dear conservatives

dear conservatives

why do you just choose
to not
believe in climate change?

what is the benefit of denying literal facts?
i don't understand. why do you guys just choose to not believe in it?

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html
youtube.com/watch?v=0B1aqwdmj38
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
nature.com/articles/ncomms14845
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

It's a consequence of the general contempt for any established institution that has developed in the last decades.
They don't believe a word anyone in government is saying so why should they believe anything the pinheads in their ivory-tower universities are saying?

The weather changes? My mind is blown!

Fear

Muh humans making climate change thread. Such low energy bait. Aren't these the same people who say races don't exist then go love a nigger for being dumb and black?

>believe in climate change

Changes in the climate are governed by thousands of variables, and the belief that we can control these changes predictably by taxing and manipulating the margins of one politically selected factor (CO2) is bullshit.

Of course the climate is changing—sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. It's quite a bit more complicated than Climate Change™ missionaries care to let on (or most often understand).
Many people are too blinded by their faith to ask or consider difficult questions.

Hasn't the climate always changed? Are we capable of stopping the climate from changing? What are the negative consequences for attempting to stop it? Is it economically viable to do so? Is it necessarily a bad thing that the climate is changing? To what degree are humans really responsible for current trends; for example, there were no SUVs during the Younger Dryas or the Older Peron transgression, so were those caused by campfires and aurochs farts?

Climate Change prophets have been predicting an apocalypse for at least the past 50 years; first it was Global Cooling—we were supposed to be entering a new ice age 20 years ago, caused by particles from industrial processes blocking out sunlight. Then it was Global Warming—the ice caps and Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2012, and there would be no more snowfall.
Now It’s Climate Change™, a wonderfully vague term that covers everything that could possibly happen.

Your kind talks of believers and deniers; your language betrays Climate Change™ for the religion it is.
A Carbon Tax is nothing more than the modern version of buying indulgences from the Church.

Science is a process, not a belief.
Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.

To be fair, all of the predictions about climate change have turned out to be bigly over exaggerated.

Climate change = Lysenkoism
It's a politically favored field of "research" where conclusions lead the "science".

ALL THE DATA IS NOW WRONG/OUTDATED

nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

These are the Hawkings of climate science saying CO2 budget for warming are 50% WRONG.

GFY

Dear liberals

Why must you ignore absolute facts in regard to race. Statistics don't lie. Nigger males are 6 percent of the American population and are responsible for 70 percent of the violent crime and 50 percent of the murders in this country. Why ignore the science?

Thanks
Anyone with an IQ on the white side of the bell curve

>only way to combat anthropogenic climate change is through global cooperation and more regulation on corperations
>conservatives mostly hate 'globalism' and corporate regulation
>therefore it is a necessity for them to deny climate change

>climate = weather
What a fucking retard

...

...

>little Billy's first attempt at paleoclimatology

youtube.com/watch?v=0B1aqwdmj38

>the ice caps and Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2012
Source: your filthy was

Climate change is occurring. There are no doubts about this. Oceans are warming. Icecaps are melting. Sea levels will rise. Nobody denies this. The only aspect of climate change that people deny is human involvement.

Most scientist who agree that humans are to blame also agree that we are far beyond the turning point. Therefore, carbon tax will do nothing to prevent climate change.

Instead, we should try to protect coastal cities, or evacuate them as necessary. Invest in future beachfront property.

Specifically which predictions?

DUDE LOL
WHAT IF WE GAVE OUR FILTHY RICH CORRUPT POLITICANS MORE MONEY SO THEY CAN FLY AROUND IN PRIVATE JETS MORE OFTEN

THAT'LL END THE NATURAL OCCURRENCE
420 MARILIZE LEGAJUANA DUDE

Explain why every single piece of scientific research that refutes manmade climate change are bankrolled by the oil industry??

Ask any conservative politician the same question and they will call you a racist.

>Source: your filthy was
No, the source was overbearing hippie cunts, like yourself.

>January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer (in a NY Times interview): “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

>1969, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator and Urban Affairs advisor to President Nixon: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

>Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect will be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico.”

>June 30, 1989, AP: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

>“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

>why do you just choose to not believe in climate change?
"Believe in" is the operant term.

>Most scientist who agree that humans are to blame also agree that we are far beyond the turning point.

Anyone else notice the discomfort people who believe in climate change seem to get when you mention that the same scientists that tell them AGW is real also say it's beyond turning point and we're all fucked?

It's like they don't want to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their own beliefs.

It's fucking uncanny.

>that image
This perfectly illustrates common ignorance regarding climate change. Rising CO2 levels increase average temperature, yes. But it also increases occurances of extreme weather.

2016 was the hottest year on record. 2015 is #2. How much will you wage against me saying 2017 will beat 2016 as the hottest year? Oh, you wont wager? Odd, I thought global warming was a hoax?

>ever notice people who think the world is ending get nervous?
Um... yea?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

>literally 21 scientists disagree with global warming
Was this meant to convince me?

>specifically which
>all of them

I believe in it but since most of the world's population lives on the coast and moat of the world's population is nonwhite I don't see a problem. Fuck it. Climate change may be god's gift to the white man.

now subtract anyone who doesn't have a research and publishing history in climatology and you're left with like 6 people or so

Dear bait:

This is bait.
>gay flag
>forcing the word "choose" over and over

Horrid bait.

Don't care. The strong will survive and make the world a better place.
In fact I welcome it.

I believe in man made climate change.
Problem is no government virtue signaling will do a thing to fix it. Our only options are to wait for the free market to produce cleaner energy or go full nuclear.
Apparently it's not a big enough deal since I don't see a lot of panicking nations building new nuclear facilities so wait it is.

>>ever notice people who think the world is ending get nervous?
That's not what I'm talking about, they actually DON'T think the world is ending while also believing in AGW.

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. I've noticed it in nearly every single conversation I've had with someone who thinks AGW is true.
>"user, we're damaging the world with CO2, we should tax the living shit out of companies for emitting it", says the libshit smugly
>user: "Don't the studies you base that on also state that the issue is far beyond fixing and we're all going to die?"
>libshit suddenly shuts up, gets nervous and starts shifting in their seat as you can see the cognitive dissonance crushing their brain

what research is saying that it's beyond fixing and we're all going to die?

I disagree with the carbon tax. We need to build seawalls and begin evacuating Florida

Post 1

I literally want coastal cities to get flooded so the leftists and niggers that live there will die.

>I don't know how to do my own research

Also.
You should probably ask the people who believe it. I'm pretty sure there's a few in this thread who can help you better than I can.

>Anyone else notice the discomfort people who believe in climate change seem to get

Like it or not, religion is part of being human.
Belief is a beneficial relic of evolution, one that likely isn't going to disappear any time soon.
Obliterate Paganism, and Christianity will quickly replace it.
Destroy Christianity?
Suddenly professed atheists convert to Islam.
Attack Mormonism? Scientology is waiting to take it's place.

Climate Change™ True Believers are just one of the modern religions.
People NEED to believe in something, and right now Egalitarianism, Islam, and Catastrophism are in the lead.

This is the rational position
I think most conservatives would be neutral or ignorant about the anthropogenic climate change if those climate scientist would not be wannabe politicians and try to impose people how they should behave.
So unfortunately, instead of saying "yes, climate is changing, so what?" the reaction is "no, I do not believe you". This weakens conservative message.

nature.com/articles/ncomms14845

>Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years

>Here we show that the slow ∼50Wm−2 increase in TSI over the last ∼420 million years (an increase of ∼9Wm−2 of radiative forcing) was almost completely negated by a long-term decline in atmospheric CO2

>Humanity’s fossil-fuel use, if unabated, risks taking us, by the middle of the twenty-first century, to values of CO2 not seen since the early Eocene (50 million years ago). If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years.

theres a difference between climate change and "man made" climate change. i dont believe in the man made climate change.

This will be a multi-part reply

Part 1:

A combination of corporate influence on public policy and a growing anti-science sentiment among American conservatives that is fueled (perhaps simultaneously intentionally and unintentionally) by religion, media, and access to the Internet. How we wound up with this mess took decades to coalesce.
The corporate influence is the easiest to explain. Many large industries, including the energy industry, have traditionally viewed environmental regulation negatively, as additional regulation can create additional expense for industries, particularly in the short-term. This has put most large industries on the side of the Republican party which has traditionally been a proponent of smaller government and, thus, less regulation. So corporations that view additional regulation negatively throw their financial support behind Republican candidates that will vote against environmental regulation (and other types of regulation as well).
The Republicans typically spin this as "More regulation = higher expenses for companies = less jobs," while ignoring that throughout history the shift to newer and better technologies leads to economic growth and better-paying, higher skilled jobs. I.e., yes, we may have fewer horse groomer and wheelwright jobs now than we had before we made the switch from horse & buggy to automobiles, but those losses were more than made up for by the millions of jobs in manufacturing that came with the switch. Likewise, we will lose, for example, coal miner jobs as we move away from carbon fuels, but we'll wind up with millions of new jobs in newer, greener industries.
However, that's not much consolation to the coal mining communities of West Virginia and their elected representatives and the coal companies that support and lobby them, though. So those representatives vote against progress.

>2016 was the hottest year on record

Yeah. And just how long is that (((record)))?

>Hottest month EVAR!!!!!!!
Really?

>Well, Hottest Month in Human History!!!!!!
Really?

>Well, Hottest Month in 160 years.
Really?

>Well, Hottest Month since standards were established in 1965.
That's what I fucking thought.

For anyone who hasn't committed to being a Climate Change™ Bishop, I recommend you learn a bit about the ongoing interstadial we live in.

Here are a few search terms:
Bolling oscillation interstadial
Older Dryas stadial
Allerod oscillation
Younger Dryas
8.2 kiloyear event
Holocene climatic optimum
Older Peron transgression
Piora Oscillation
5.9 kiloyear event
4.2 kiloyear event
Roman warm period
Medieval warm period
Little Ice Age

You're welcome.

Part 2:

That part is fairly simple and has played itself out over and over in the history of American politics. Eventually, progress wins (mostly). Where it gets trickier is when religion and media get mixed into it.

Science has always had it's religious detractors (just ask Galileo), but until the mid-20th century there wasn't a lot of direct conflict between religion and science in the American political theater (mostly because religion held sway). However, science really picked up steam in the 20th century and started having amazing positive impacts on people's daily lives, increasing its acceptance in society and, subsequently, knocking religious explanations of how the world works back on its heels.

This gave rise to a fundamentalist evangelical Christian movement in the US that has a strong anti-science bent, as much science contradicts scripture. It particularly took off in the late 70's and the 80's, but you can see elements of it back to the 50's and earlier. Organizations like The Moral Majority strengthened religious opposition on scientific and science-related issues abortion, stem cell research, evolution, etc. to the point of things like preventing evolution from being taught in some school districts (or requiring that creationism be taught along with it). Since fundamentalist, evangelical Christians disproportionately identify as Republicans these issues became core components of the Republican platform.

Concurrently with this, there was a growing backlash among conservatives against universities, as colleges and universities, particularly in the 1960's, were seen (not incorrectly) as having been a hotbed of liberalism that generated significant support for the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the opposition to the Vietnam war, and other liberal / Democratic issues. And where does science come from? Universities. So science gets branded with the scarlet letter of Liberalism by association, adding to conservative distrust.

Part 3:

And it's in the 70's and 80's where -- at least in my opinion -- stuff starts to really get murky. You have the corporate funders of Republican candidates pushing back against environmental regulations that limit their short-term profits. You have Christian fundamentalists pushing back against particular fields of science that contradict scripture. You have mainstream Republicans pushing back against liberalism in universities, and eventually, in primary and secondary school, which influences the Christian fundamentalists and spawns the home-schooling movement and the school vouchers movement (to use public money to send kids to private religious schools).

This all comes together in a weird mix of growing skepticism on the right about both science and education. I think the corporate funders picked up on this and started backing candidates that expressed those skeptical, anti-science views because that landed them more Republican voters, hopefully more successful Republican candidates winning seats to get them (the corporations) more representation in government ... which then supports into their anti-regulation stance.

So somewhere in that late-20th century political realm, religious skepticism about science got in bed with corporate anti-environmental-regulation interests and that anti-regulation, anti-science combo made a powerful mix for getting Republican candidates elected.

And then, in the next decade, the nineties, you introduce the expanded role of media -- particularly 24/7 cable news -- and the Internet into the mix. What this does is create echo chambers, so that the population that is voting for these anti-regulation, anti-science candidates can now get all of their information exclusively from sources (e.g. Fox News Channel and conservative websites) that support and reinforce the same anti-regulation, anti-science positions that they hold.

Part 4:

That's how we wind up with a whole political party that not only regularly ignores science and logic, but goes through all sorts of mental gymnastics to come up with alternative explanations that, though having no basis in fact, can be piped through the echo chamber to strengthen their hold on their political base.

f you look at the data, from the early 70's onward, except for a small bounce in the 80's under Reagan but particularly from the 1992 election onward, there has been a pretty continuous decline of trust in science among people who identify as conservative. (Source of that chart is this article.)

I used to think that Republican candidates were just in the pocket of Big Business, and took anti-science stances to keep their corporate campaign donations rolling in. But increasingly I think the Republican candidates that are getting elected now came up and were educated in the political environment of the last 40 years that I described above and actually don't believe in science at all ... or believe it's a liberal conspiracy ... or at the least are selective in what science they are willing to believe. That's really chilling.

This is a troubling position for our country to be in. The one ray of hope that I see is that, in the long-term, corporations know that they have to invest in science to continue to grow and be relevant.

Even Exxon Mobile and ConocoPhillips, the two largest US oil & gas companies, urged Trump not to abandon the Paris Accord. Of course, that may have just been a PR move, since they had nothing to lose at that point. But they are global companies and know that they must make the shift to different energy sources anyway to continue to sell into the global economy.

>Science has always had it's religious detractors
You don't say...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

The climate is probably changing. How much mankind is contributing is unknown. Giving a shitload of money to the establishment won't fix it. Now go fuck off.

Haha right!! If they where truly equal they would be called the same thing wah

>posts a graph that ends in 1950 as 'proof'
>lists a bunch of events he probably copied and pasted from a blog, that don't disprove current climate change

>that don't disprove current climate change
Prove that an omnipotent man with a huge white beard doesn't live in the sky and watch you masturbate.

Religion is AWESOME.

Except humanity is only a small source of C02 production.

How dude are you?

Dumb*

>calls person dumb
>makes spelling mistake

I know right. I'm high, woops.

>uses drugs
>calls others dumb

>high

>what is the benefit of denying literal facts?
>facts

...

the climate alarmist on this thread should watch this and decide for themselves

youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

For the same reason why leftists choose not to believe in biology

Fuck off roastie whore.

>I'm high
>Converts to Global Warming

I know, dude!
I mean, dude, weed! and global warming and huge fucking bush, maaaaan!
Like, you should learn how to grow your own salad and shit.

You've been lied to.
We believe human activity impacts the weather, it's just not significant enough to hamstring our industry.

We are fully confident that we as Americans can meet the engineering challenges presented by a changing climate.

Human activity's role is still likely overblown. How do you rationalize the fact that major predictions about climate change have been completely false in the past?

Like when Al Gore said we're all gonna die if we don't meet emission standards, and the other times he said that.

All the shabbos goyim shill for this shit, no way it isnt some kike hoax.

1970s Ice Age scare

BC they don’t want to deindustrislizr the USA just yet.

Fucking this

>1 post by this ID