climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[prop_joe]

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this. But climate deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.

A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

What about those who don't deny man made climate change but are skeptical as to the severity of it and the hysteria surrounding it? I don't think we fit into any of your catergories, not exclusively anyway. The phrase 'climate change denier' only really applies to a very small group of people (if this thread is anything to go by) to the point where it isn't very useful. I believe the 'denier' thing was hashed out way back and should of been put to bed. Correct me if im wrong but i don't think many of the posters here outright deny man made effects on climate, more it's impact relative to natural climate change. This seems to be a common assumption from people on the pro side towards anybody who questions anything from the official narrative, if you could refrain from doing this it may give a better insight as to what your up against(you never know you may end up agreeing on some things).

Everyone wants a decent place to live, theres just disagreement on how to go about it. Imagine you built a space ship to get to the moon but made it from paper, imo that would be a terrible idea and i would not support it... however this does not mean i am anti-moon or moonist lol... i just think there's a better way. I don't like greta, extinction rebellion, farcical 'green' initiations and gestures, hypocritical celebs and politicians, braindead hippies ect... this does not neccasserily mean i care any less about the planet than you.

[tegirinenashi]

...They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool...

OK, if you want to go this route.

Global Warming believers (sorted by their numbers):

• Naive, misinformed, but compelled for some kind of activism. To cite Ricky Gervais: "You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg"

• Greenwash industry

• Scientists who failed in hard subjects, and transitioned to various "studies". Often their subject - like gender studies - has nothing to do with global warming, but they invariably insert "climate change will cause mass suffering" into their corrupt research. Here is how serious scientists view this phenomenon

• Lukewarmers. Keep in mind that Svante Arrhenius, who was the first to discover the greenhouse effect, felt in this category. To quote him:
  "By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."

[unclebill]

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this. But climate deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.

A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

Simply substitute "believer" for "denier", "left wing" for "right wing" etc. You have them all with the added advantage of a heavily biased main stream media and opportunistic politicians pushing the agenda.

[palmbeacher]

...They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool...

OK, if you want to go this route.

Global Warming believers (sorted by their numbers):

• Naive, misinformed, but compelled for some kind of activism. To cite Ricky Gervais: "You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg"

• Greenwash industry

• Scientists who failed in hard subjects, and transitioned to various "studies". Often their subject - like gender studies - has nothing to do with global warming, but they invariably insert "climate change will cause mass suffering" into their corrupt research. Here is how serious scientists view this phenomenon

• Lukewarmers. Keep in mind that Svante Arrhenius, who was the first to discover the greenhouse effect, felt in this category. To quote him:
  "By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."

Mine is better. And you forgot the 99% of scientists who are in consensus that humans are causing global warming.

[slide]

here here

[prop_joe]

Mine is better.

With each post i think your just further renforcing my points. However, i would much prefer it if you would actually engage and debate but i think your types take this 'i am right so listen to me' attitude simply because you don't have the ability to discuss other ideas that contradict your own imo. Would like to see you prove me wrong or at least try.

And you forgot the 99% of scientists who are in consensus that humans are causing global warming.

This was also discussed earlier although i don't think it was concluded. I've read/seen a number of things that suggest the way the data was gathered was dubious and also something about grants for researchers who are part of the consensus... have a look if your interested, i can't remember exactly. I thought 'scientific consensus' sounded a bit dodgy in itself anyway but there's enough there to create signficant doubt for me. The constantly changing % figure alone doesn't help...i've seen 85%, 90%, 97%, 98% and now 99%... just call it 100% and be done with it .

[palmbeacher]

Mine is better.

With each post i think your just further renforcing my points. However, i would much prefer it if you would actually engage and debate but i think your types take this 'i am right so listen to me' attitude simply because you don't have the ability to discuss other ideas that contradict your own imo. Would like to see you prove me wrong or at least try.

And you forgot the 99% of scientists who are in consensus that humans are causing global warming.

This was also discussed earlier although i don't think it was concluded. I've read/seen a number of things that suggest the way the data was gathered was dubious and also something about grants for researchers who are part of the consensus... have a look if your interested, i can't remember exactly. I thought 'scientific consensus' sounded a bit dodgy in itself anyway but there's enough there to create signficant doubt for me. The constantly changing % figure alone doesn't help...i've seen 85%, 90%, 97%, 98% and now 99%... just call it 100% and be done with it .

There’s no argument about the science, so little use debating scientific facts. Recasting the issue as a matter of faith rather than reason lets you simply ignore the evidence. Moreover, resisting the consensus about climate change fits with other themes Maggots champion, especially disdain for “elites” (scientists and other assorted intellectuals in this case) and international cooperation.

A key question historians in coming decades will have to answer: were the right-wingers who lined up behind Trump and "alternative facts" and climate denial and who attacked experts and academics and scientists: were they dumb? Or dishonest? Or a bit of both?

[Havre]

What value does it hold when someone with a history of lying are just telling us there is no argument about the science?

Not to mention what does that even mean. No argument about what exactly? How much the planet is warming? How much warming it can handle? Define "handle". How much is caused by human activity? Why "pre-industrial" levels are the optimum level of co2 in the atmosphere? Which part is "clear"?

Not to mention then if it is so "clear" are all governments corrupt? Why isn't a single nation doing "enough" to stop whatever is happening? Obviously that isn't proof of anything contrary, but maybe what is "clear" isn't so clear after all?

[unclebill]

[/quote]Mine is better. And you forgot the 99% of scientists who are in consensus that humans are causing global warming.
[/quote]

That was a complete fabrication being spread around several years ago by a couple of beginner kiteboarders. Instead of improving their skills Barry and Jerry went around spreading misinformation, trying to impress their followers and satisfy their sponsors looking to go big in the solar and wind energy scam at taxpayer expense. Turns out they were a lot better liars than riders. Just goes to show you can't trust everyone, even beginners.

[Matteo V]

There’s no argument about the science, so little use debating scientific facts.

Nothing about the climate alarmists ideas can be considered fact when those supposed "facts" fail miserably to produce an accurate prediction.

Faith is required to believe in something which is never is proven true.