But like most trolls, he just moves on to the next crappy denial line after the previous one has been thoroughly debunked. Utter waste of time. Might as well be talking to a bot. — Mikie
No, I believe in environmental change (not just the UUUUH IT IS GETTING HOT part championed by the automatic masses under their corporate overlords). — Lionino
What kind of odds would you give to the climate being that way? — RogueAI
Contemporary scientists are right Anthropogenic climate about anthropogenic climate change change is negligible We do something about YY NY the environment We go on about our business YN NN with no mind to the environment
100%. As soon as I say a few factories make no difference here and there you will just move goalpost and say that doesn't qualify as "enough small changes". Your weasel word there is "enough", it can mean anything from cow farming all the way to nuclear warfare. — Lionino
I am still not gonna eat the bugs, I will use AC, I will drive a car. — Lionino
But what about governments subsidizing things like solar and wind energy? — RogueAI
And what about governments subsidizing lab grown meat? — RogueAI
As far as I can tell, "We do something about the environment" is generally the most rational (re)action, at least if caring about our children's children. — jorndoe
At what point do you land the plane? — Echarmion
My thing is; don’t the ceos of these companies have kids and family? I mean they must know what they’re saying is bs but they still do it for the buck. Just weird to me. — John McMannis
Climate denialists – 23 in Senate and 100 in House – are all Republicans and make US an outlier internationally
Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University who has long studied anti-climate rhetoric, said it was “unsurprising” that the report found old-school climate denial is on the decline.
“It’s harder to deny the science when it’s so much more apparent that the climate is warming, that extreme weather is getting worse and happening constantly,” she said. “Nobody can deny the science with a straight face, given everything.”
She noted, however, that the fossil fuel industry and its allies have long used a variety of messaging to rebuff concerns about the climate. She said she was unsure those other forms of rhetoric were any less harmful.
“As far back as the 1990s, they were saying renewable energy isn’t reliable enough, or they were saying that wind power … kills whales,” she said. “Is it really so different from climate denial if you don’t deny the science but you deny the possibility of solutions?”
PS: I realize now that the melodramatic letter was probably not written by a boomer, because this type of virtue-signaling self-flagelation is not in their nature. — Tzeentch
ethereal 'climate change' — Tzeentch
clearly discernible causes — Tzeentch
The causes are also very clearly discernible: greenhouse gases. This is pretty basic stuff. To imply the causes aren’t discernible, the effects aren’t seen, etc — is pure climate denial. Why don’t you grow up on this subject already? — Mikie
obfuscates the very real, short-term health risks that everybody ignores. — Tzeentch
It’s at least as real and important as toxicity. — Mikie
yeah, also important — Mikie
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.