Climate Change Deniers and why they are Idiots

16 04 2011

by Christopher Jay Thompson


 

There are all these idiots out there that deny climate change and Civilization’s  effect on the environment all together. We live in a society that dumps chemicals and garbage on the ground and in the ocean,and has factories and vehicles that spew toxic smoke into the air. We uproot entire forests for lumber, paper , and to make room for more cities to add to the pollution.

This is Sanbernardino on an average day. Isn't it pretty?

   How can a logical person think that this has no effect on the environment. I guess that’s the point, they aren’t logical. I grew up in San Bernardino county in southern California, which is victim to both air and water pollution(and extreme levels of poverty and crime). If any one has seen the movie Erin Brockovich, the town she was representing was in San Bernardino county.   

San Bernardino county(or  the great western smog bowl as I call it.) is a valley completely  surrounded by mountains. All the smog from L.A. and Sandiego Blows into the valley and stays there. The sky is literally brown. Children have died of lung cancer from just breathing the air.To think that this poison has no effect on the environment is not just stupid, it is Irresponsible.

Let’s get to the root of climate change denial, wich is greedy corporations. They deny climate change because they are of regulations  that would require them to buy expensive equipment to limit factory admissions.Talk about cheap. We have really got to wake up to reality, we are killing ourselves off.Climate change is real, and we must do something before it is too late.

 

Advertisements

Actions

Information

49 responses

30 04 2011
正教会の智

Since you like to call people idiots, here’s why are an idiot:

You:

“greedy corporations…deny climate change because they are of regulations that would require them to buy expensive equipment to limit factory admissions.”

— Multinationals are the ones who own the politicians who introduce those regulations.

— Who do you think manufactures that expensive equipment?

— The corporations fire more industrialized-nation workers, making them more ‘post-industrial’ (i.e. more jewsury, and more artificial economics), and move their operations to the countries that have no such regulations, and increase their pollutants-output multifold.

— Who do you think benefits from all the “Carbon Credits” scams.

Verdict: Idiot.

30 04 2011
nemo

I find it interesting that you talk about corporations moving to nations with no regulations, so far there are no regulations on emissions of factories in the U.S.,we are also one of the few industrial nations that have been refusing to regulate air pollution. The biggest producer of CO2 emissions rfuses to acknowledge global warming, or the implication of human activities as the cause, because it might cut into the profits of U.S. based multi-national corpporations. you speak of multi-nationals being behind regulations, but the Muti-nationals are the corporations tat are refusing to acknowlege pollution. Acording to that logic,the same corporations refusing regulations are the same groups that are trying to institute the regulations. That doesn’t make much sense.

26 04 2011
seeker401

http://sppiblog.org/news/that-97-solution-again

The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?

you need to stop drinking the kool aid and get real

28 04 2011
nemo

that’s still an overwhelming majority. I’m sure the scientists are more qoualified than the “scientists” on the oregon pettition, saying that most the signatures were fake on that pettition.

28 04 2011
seeker401

did you even read it..its nowhere near a majority..from 10,000 + they got 75..try 1%..its all over..you have been conned..like so many others

28 04 2011
nemo

Unknown qualifications? What does that mean? They all had degrees in climate science. all of your sources are on the pay rolls of Exxon. You would probably argue that gravity doesnt exist. You talk about Qualificationd, when the few scientists who deny climate change are metorologists(weather men) and geoligists people who are not experts in climate.
you idiots claim that we are hyeading into an ice age, wich is some crap that the US media spread in the 70’s because the got paid to do so. we better pollute as much as possible to prevent that from happening.We should cut down all the trees to because there is way too much oxygen. you have the logic of a toaster. Maybe you should have paid attention in school.

28 04 2011
seeker401

“wich is some crap that the US media spread in the 70′s because the got paid to do so. ”

you dipshit..this is exactly what they are doing now as well..you silly man..learn to spell as well..your english is appalling and shows your true brain size

28 04 2011
nemo

The media wasn’t spreading anything about global warming 1989 or 1990, when I was learng about it in Junior high. The difference is that that global cooling crap was never ever endorsed by scientists. If Global warming is such a Hoax, It i9s the Loagest hoax in history, since it was talked about scientific circles as far back 1930s

28 04 2011
nemo

Why am I going to spellcheck a comment. My english is Just fine, my typing sucks though.

29 04 2011
nemo

I speak American english. So, maybe my gramar may seem terible to you.Not every one speaks British english. My gramar show my nationality, you have just proven that your brain is microscopic

30 04 2011
nemo

Information from another organization funded by oil money. Pathetic. The best you can come up with is information from a source that is funded by the same mega corporations that have the most to lose if regulations go into affect. Nice try.

26 04 2011
worldwide

i did my research a while ago and concluded the top causes of co2 emissions are: volcanoes, the sea evaporating and bovine excrement (cow manure, we eat a lot of beef). yes the earth may be getting warmer. is it coz of us? i don’t think its ONLY coz of us. u think the humans burning sticks melted the ice in the past? the earth has gone through friggin’ ice ages for f’s sake! we’ve only been around for a minute.

is pollution bad for us? its been proven to be friggin’ cancerous to us. what do scientists gain with this global warming story? our attention and funding which makes them ever more important. what do governments get out of global warming? a platform to win votes without much actual work from their part, they talk a whole lot and in the end make people pay more for their goods while we keep on polluting. taxing people for everything that produces co2, which is almost everything, raising prices making our lives even more expensive. is carbon emissions trading a good solution? no, coz the biggest manufacturers can afford to buy all the credits they need and smaller producers will be put out of business. but wait that means fewer factories? yeah fewer and bigger ones which in our world means bigger interests and more power.

if we ever manage to stop burning fossil fuels we will have managed to solve a big part of our pollution problem, and might reduce the cancer stats if we don’t all get sick from japan. as for global warming, i don’t think so.

26 04 2011
nemo

one of rogers sources of imformation is the GCSC, an organization that is funded by the oil companies

26 04 2011
nemo

i wonder if the 2 negative votes on my survey are roger and seeker. HMMM.

26 04 2011
nemo

by the way , seeker, I didn’t get the name nemo from finding nemo but from little nemo. no connection with the fish what so ever.

26 04 2011
24 04 2011
rogerthesurf

“you keep insulting me roger, but you have done more so far to prove your self wrong, then anything else. You have not proven your point, you have proven that you use Phony sources to try to prove a point. I have answered your questions but you have not answered any of mine.Here’s a question what would these conspiri9ng scientists gain by creating a hoax, that most non-corporate people on the planet believe. I don’t see fortune and fame at the end of that rainbow. I think you are arguing the point so much because your Entire blog is about global warming being fake. If you can’t keep convincing people who don’t do research to believe you, you no lo9nger have a Blog. I on the other hand have many subjects to write about.

Cherio Roger
have some crumpets and a spot of tea”

You certainly lay yourself open to ridicule and insults, but I have been kind to you.
Rather than laughing at your appalling ignorance of AGW and indeed basic chemistry, instead I have taken the trouble to direct you where (if you are able) you can redress some of this ignorance.

You have not answered any of my questions because you have not once supported any of your assertions with an academic paper wheras on the other hand you appear incapable of reading any of mine.

Just because you disagree with what a source says, is no reason to label it as phony.

“Here’s a question what would these conspiri9ng scientists gain by creating a hoax, that most non-corporate people on the planet believe”

Well the best answer to that is to look at the example of Al Gore.
Here is a picture of his latest house. His meteoric rise in wealth is reputed to be money made from his AGW investments etc.
Actually I understand Al Gore has three houses, located respectively in Nashville Tenn, Carthage Tenn and Montecito Cal.
Here are some photographs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91230

Cost something like US$9 million.
You can see how he keeps his carbon footprint to a minimum.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

24 04 2011
nemo

You’re right Roger. The fact That Man who has been super rich long before he was even a politician, having several large homes, disproves Climate change. You think the meager amount of money he earned from video sales paid for those houses. Do you think the scientists are billionaires. Do you think Al gore invented the Idea of Global Warming. I called some of your sources fake , because they are fake. I belive you over (7 percent of climatologists. Roger, what Corporation do you own stock in?

24 04 2011
rogerthesurf

Anyone can buy corporate stock. Its what keeps us different from a communist society.

Once again you are making assertions without finding any support.
Really you are absolutely ignorant and are getting up my nose.
It is very obvious that you are lucky if you made it to 7th grade.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-reasons-advancing-global-warming-hysteria
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
http://www.politikditto.com/2009/04/global-warming-hoax-has-filled-al-gores.html

If you can actually read them.

And if you think they are fake, just think how much Al Gore could sue them for defamation if they were not true.

Cheers

Roger

And ffs do something about your general education!

24 04 2011
nemo

The links you just posted show me that you are the one lacking in education. An intelligent person wouldn’t believe that crap.

25 04 2011
rogerthesurf

I might think it was fake if Al Gore won a few defamation actions over what they print, esp the NY Times article.

21 04 2011
rogerthesurf

“Its called common sense. If the ozone layer protects us from radiation, and there is a hole in it. so one would conclude that it would affect global warming.No, roger the global temperature has not been hoter 4 times before.”

Once again Nemo, I am intrigued where you get your information from?
Do you have a green group in San Bernadino that help you understand these things perhaps?

Cheers

Roger

21 04 2011
nemo235

Roger give me a link to a website that says the global temperature has been hotter than now 4 times.

23 04 2011
rogerthesurf

Sure, there is a whole bunch of links dealing with the Medieval Warm Period and other warmings on my blog. Look on the right under “Links to illustrate the Globalness of the Medieval Warm Period and other Warmings”
Also try re-reading the text of my blog again and think about the significance of the archaeological finds at Garden Unter Sandet and Schnidejoch.
Check the red line on this graph.

Read http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/porky-no-3-ipcc-attempts-to-change-history/

As for your other assertions about the ozone hole and running out of oxygen, I’m not sure that I can explain unless you want to spend a few years studying your high school chemistry.
Here are some links that may help though.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
“Earth’s atmosphere is made up of a combination of gases. The major components of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon remain constant over time and space, while trace components like CO2 and water vapor vary considerably over both space and time. ”
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=107
http://www.theozonehole.com/climate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

Good luck.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

23 04 2011
nemo

here is another article from science daily, the site you referenced. a not to my readers there is more on that website that supports what I am saying more than what roger is saying. But don’t take my word for ist read it yourself.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.htm

23 04 2011
rogerthesurf

I think you should be reading the links I gave you and doing some high school chemistry like I suggested before you try and tell anyone about Anthropogenic Climate Change. Then you might just have a clue what its all about.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

23 04 2011
nemo

you keep insulting me roger, but you have done more so far to prove your self wrong, then anything else. You have not proven your point, you have proven that you use Phony sources to try to prove a point. I have answered your questions but you have not answered any of mine.Here’s a question what would these conspiri9ng scientists gain by creating a hoax, that most non-corporate people on the planet believe. I don’t see fortune and fame at the end of that rainbow. I think you are arguing the point so much because your Entire blog is about global warming being fake. If you can’t keep convincing people who don’t do research to believe you, you no lo9nger have a Blog. I on the other hand have many subjects to write about.

Cherio Roger
have some crumpets and a spot of tea

19 04 2011
nemo235

here is a link for you Roger

http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html

19 04 2011
nemo235

roger I am wondering something. I looked at the ICSC website, then I googled it and nothing came up, not a single article or reference. why is that roger?

18 04 2011
nemo235

heres a link to the Noaa website. acordig to them, the biggest jump inclimate change was the 2oth century

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_paleo.html

18 04 2011
nemo235

acordind to Ipcc it will be hundreds of years before we are fully affected by the melting greenland Ice cap.If that Is the only thing that global warming will have an effect on, there is no immediate danger. But berfore that we will suffucate from lack of oxygen. yet even if rising sea levels are our only concern, is it responsible to say, well I will be dead by then so who cares. Should we just not give a shit about future generations? why dont we just build a million more factories and speed up the process, now the variables have changed, then it gets a little closer. The if the hole in the ozone layer gets bigger because of pollution, the temperature rizes, and speeds up the process. either way the temperature will get to high to support human life way before sea levels become a problem.

19 04 2011
rogerthesurf

Actually, with all due respect, I think you need to read the IPCC reports just a great deal more to make sure you understand fully exactly what you are taking upon yourself to preach to us all.

According to the IPCC, that epitome of exaggeration, the answer is more than 2000 years. I kid you not.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html#table-spm-3

Note the use of the word “millennia”

Yet many people believe that this is a serious problem to be dealt with immediately.

“But berfore that we will suffucate from lack of oxygen”

Do you know what the top limit for CO2 concentration for human respiration is?
Do you know what the optimum CO2 atmospheric concentration for life on this planet is?
Are you aware of what the current concentrations of the components of the atmosphere are?

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

23 04 2011
nemo

roger here is a more recent article about the greenland ice cap
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612092741.htm

20 04 2011
rogerthesurf

I am particularly interested in your phrase ” But berfore that we will suffucate from lack of oxygen”.

What makes you say that?

Where is the oxygen going to go? Or are you saying that we will die from carbon dioxide poisoning, or that the carbon dioxide will somehow overtake the oxygen?

Please explain.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

21 04 2011
nemo235

roger once oxygen is used up it is gone and i becomes carbon dioxide. Really roger you are sinking to an all time low. Now you are just picking apart my words. Grow up.

21 04 2011
rogerthesurf

Nemo,

That we may actually run out/use up all of our oxygen is indeed a worrying piece of information.

Whereabouts did you learn this troubling possibility?

Do you attend Greenpeace meetings or Friends of the Earth perhaps and this is what they tell you or are you simply using your common sense?

Cheers

Roger

21 04 2011
nemo235

roger, trees are the main source of oxygen.deforestation,we are losing trees at an alarming rate. no trees equals no oxygen. I dont attend any greenpeace meetings. Where do you get your information, Exxon?

18 04 2011
nemo235

I don’t really think the rising sea level is the problem.you should find out yourself, Iam not going to do your reasearch for you. You say that the facts I gave you are my oppinion. It is not my oppinion. If you believe 3 percent of climatoligists over the other 97 percent, that is your irresponsible choice. Are you the head of some corporation? If you think global warming is some crazy conspiracy, what would be gained from it?

18 04 2011
rogerthesurf

Of course I can give you the answer with appropriate authorative references.

The aim of my original question is to test your level of kinowledge and understanding about the cause of which you feel qualified to preach to others on a public forum.

So far you are failing miserably.

How can you possibly preach AGW when you do not know or understand the facts yourself?

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

17 04 2011
rogerthesurf

Were you answering my comment?

Perhaps not as I do not see any response to my question.

Also when one is making an assertion in a public forum such as this, it is an excellent idea to reference every fact or assertion that is not your opinion, with some sort of authoritave source. Published academic papers are probably among the best.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

19 04 2011
nemo235

roger, please explain to my readers ehy you are using fake documents a souce material to disprove global warming.

19 04 2011
rogerthesurf

On your comment on my site you refered to the Oregon Petition citing an entry in Rationalwiki.

I assume this is what you are refering to.

First of all I think the standing of the website “Rationalwiki” appears and is considerably lower than that of the Oregon Petition.

It is not unreasonable with a petition that size to have a few bum entries. Would be surprised if it didn’t.

The main criticism leveled at the Oregon Petition is the fact that only a minority of the signatories are climate scientists. I do not see this as a problem because not only is the number of actual climate scientists on the petition still a respectable number, the poor practices of the IPCC and the leading AGW supporting scientists can be analysed by a scientist of any disipline as being unacceptable.

Here are some more links for you:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf
http://www.nas.org/polPressReleases.cfm?Doc_Id=1729
http://www.financialpost.com/news/Climate%20models%20cold/4579652/story.html

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

PS
“. The if the hole in the ozone layer gets bigger because of pollution, the temperature rizes, and speeds up the process”

I have never heard of any connection between the ozone hole and anthropogenic global warming before.

Of course I agree the ozone hole is a problem in itself that needs to be addressed.

19 04 2011
nemo235

the mad made chemicals are causing the hole in the ozone layer. If you have never heard of the connection between the ozone layer and global warming, then you don’t understant the green house effect. Perhaps it is you that doesnot understand the science behind global warming. You are trying to convince people that it is just a coincidence that the global temperate made a drastic climb after industrialization.
that is like intentionaly setting a house fire and thinking that it is just a coincidence that it burned down.

20 04 2011
rogerthesurf

No I have never seen any paper or reference outlining any connection between the ozone hole and global warming.

Perhaps you can direct me to a scientific paper which will help me understand this.

Yes I do understand the Greenhouse theory to some considerable detail, but I am also aware that there is a considerable body of misinformation around, and it is important to identify this before one passes it on.

I hope you are also aware the the world has been warmer than the current at least four times within historical times.

Cheers

Roger

21 04 2011
nemo235

Its called common sense. If the ozone layer protects us from radiation, and there is a hole in it. so one would conclude that it would affect global warming.No, roger the global temperature has not been hoter 4 times before.

17 04 2011
rogerthesurf

Seeing as how you are taking it upon yourself to preach to the world about how we should behave (and at the same time showing no understanding of the difference between genuine pollution issues and carbon dioxide emissions), here is a little test of your knowledge.

According to the IPCC, how soon will it be before we are fully effected by the 7 meter sea level rise caused by the melting of the Greenland ice cap?

Perhaps YOU could tell us readers here in the S Pacific.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

17 04 2011
nemo235

Thousands of scientists concur that global warming is a fact, not a theory. the masive amounts of co2 are causing the global temperatures to rise. The Idea of global warming had been on the books since 1938 but was ignored,later that Idea would be confirmed as a fact. The funny thing is that most of you deniers din’t even hear about global warming until Al Gore made a movie.Some of you even call it . A lot of you are deniers simply because a liberal spoke about the subject. The corporations support the denial of Global warming just to save money.do you really think we can put all this crap in the air and it will have no effect on the planet?

17 04 2011
nemo235

97 percent of climatoligists agree that global warming is real and is caused by human pollution. but the hell with the experts, what do they know.

26 04 2011
seeker401

your ignorance is frightening nemo..please show a link to the 97% statistic..who took the survey? what questions did they ask? ..if you make a claim back it up little fish

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: