Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by lanokia, Jan 10, 2020.
About how seriously you view climate change denial is
I don't know what you think my opinion is but as I've posted several times (not recently admittedly) I accept the evidence for climate change myself so I'm mystified why some seem to be such deniers.
But I don't think anyone challenging the 'conventional wisdom' on climate change should be convicted of a crime.
My point, somewhat laboured now, is that you might not have that opinion in a few years.
And neither may I.
I will remind you in 5 years time and barring accidents we will both still be around hopefully and so will climate change which was here before us and will be here as long as there is the planet earth.
Climate change is a natural event that has always been and will always be with us. It cannot nor will it EVER be controlled by human action.
AGW is ‘pseudo science’ where data has been adjusted to fit the hypothesis and as such fully deserves its title.
And the fires, floods and extremes we are now seeing are all just natural variation.
All the lols there.
Well there it is. The wrongest thing I will read today.
Once more for the hard of thinking.
The Earths climate has changed continuously for as long as there has been an atmosphere to have a climate. However, the change that has happened since the start of the industrial revolution is orders of magnitude larger than that. In the past there have been large magnitude climate changes. They happened when there were catastrophes (the massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia causing the Permian extinction, the asteroid strike at the end of the Cretaceous). They immediately lead to mass extinction events. The damage we have done in just 200 years is on the scale of those events.
Sticking our fingers in our ears and going lalala I'm not listening is the surest way for humans to become extinct very soon.
I'd argue that challenging conventional wisdom with evidence is a positive thing. However, challenging the scientific consensus with hyperbole, logical fallacies and repetition could lead to humans not being a thing anymore. I like humans. Well most of them. Some of them. A few anyway.
Stop panicking, we will remain barring war.
20 years from now I will be gone but my grandchildren's children will be here.
Would you like confirmation? I can provide historical reports of the same kind doom mongering.
OK, so what's your answer to what I previously asked? What penalty should be imposed on climate change deniers convicted of, as you put it, a 'crime against humanity? Maybe something like the maximum 5 years in prison that a holocaust-denier could receive in Germany?
Many just like this.
Thus speaks someone with zero knowledge of data science.
No matter how harsh you believe the threat of a jail term for deniaism is, the reality of the coming decades and centuries is worse. Rising seas, shifting biosphere, crop failures, wildfire, droughts, storms, famine and war. More people with less space, less food, less clean water and more pollution. It's not alarmist, it's the inevitable result of us refusing to recognise that we are one species of hairless ape on one planet, and we depend utterly on it for our survival. We cannot continue with the demented idea that continuous growth is possible on a finite planet and continue to exist.
So your objection is religion based.
The religious used to sometimes say openly that AGW cannot be true because only god can affect the climate, therefore the case is proven. Then the evidence continued to grow and now you rarely hear the "reasoning", just the simple statement with no explanation as to why. A pity that honesty seems to have gone out of the window with such arguments, and the real rationale is kept quiet so as to try and stay in the argument.
This is the reason I largely bow out of AGW discussions, you often end up talking to people whose "truth" is based on their belief in god.
..that and the bloke-at-the-bus-stop videos.
I'll ask again - what penalty do you think should be imposed on climate change deniers found guilty of this 'crime against humanity'?
I look at how AGW alarmists have altered historical data to fit the desired gloom and doom they wish to promulgate.
You and others on here seem to blindly accept that and refuse to believe that their research is based on funding exigencies which are politically driven.
I know I will never convince the AGW zealots so perhaps your type of approach is better, just ignore them.
Time will tell and I am very comfortable in that knowledge.
You cannot beat a little of that old "hellfire and damnation" to bring a disbeliever into the fold
Back in the 1960's we were entering an ice age