Becuase they dont want to belive how much two generations of people can distroy, but hey my generation might end up with end of freedom So we will see what happens next

Because so much of the media is owned by groups who are also invested in the fossil fuel and automotive industries, and they are stuck in short-sighted greed-based thinking. And too many Americans don’t pay a lot of attention to politics, don’t do research themselves, Fox News comes free with too many cable TV packages, people are afraid to face that the status quo may be causing the extinction of humanity, parts of their ego defenses would rather believe happier lies, etc.

Because if they truly believe it, they’d have to something about it. And we Americans are so spoilt, most won’t even do the minimum, home recycling. It’s sad and pathetic, even without politics added in.

Or maybe, coming from someone who questions man-made climate change, because it all started off long ago with global warming. And the IPCC came out with a report about how a lot of very knowledgeable scientists said it was real and was happening. Many of those same scientists spoke out against the report as the conclusions varied very much as to whether there was or wasn’t global warming and what the cause could be if there was. Man-made warming was not the big winner. The report was edited by bureaucrats who wanted a specific answer and that is not science.

Or maybe it’s because over the course of our planet’s history there have been many swings in climate far greater than what we are seeing today…and man was not around. Yet all the arguments about that are ignored.

Or maybe it’s because there are other things that could greatly be influencing our climate and our environment that are being ignored completely. The magnetosphere for instance. Do you know that it has been shrinking for about the last 200 years? Coincidentally that is about the length of time the climate-changers claim mankind has been influencing our environment. What is the magnetosphere you ask? It is the magnetic field our planet creates around itself that helps protect us from the impact of the sun’s radiation. In other words it is shielding for us. As it shrinks, we have less shielding and the impact from the sun goes up. Of course when you bring this up, the argument is that the output of the sun has remained constant and the scientists have verified that. That is a dodge. It can remain the same, but you are removing shielding. Think of it like this…you go outside and you put on an SPF 80 sunscreen. You can sit outside for an hour and a half before the sun starts to impact you negatively. Now try it again but put on an SPF 20. Same sun, but less shielding. Now you can only be out for about half an hour before the sun starts to impact you negatively.

Maybe it’s because the answer from all the “leaders” is that we need to give them control over all carbon emissions. They don’t present efforts to preserve forests or rainforests, they don’t actually want to hold some of the major polluters of the world (China for instance) accountable but they want you to give them power over you. All their efforts show THEY are not serious about dealing with it if it is a real issue so why should I take it serious?

Because they just don’t want to believe that it’s true. Out of sight, out of mind.

Because Al Gore was one of the first people to really address the nation regarding the concerns and the Republicans realized they could make climate change a political wedge issue.

@seawulf575 I almost gave you a “good answer” for your contribution as it so precisely demonstrates how bad thinking obscures the truth and leads to people questioning scientific facts.

For example, it is known that the magnetosphere has no effect on climate change, with or without sunscreen. Mentioning it is red herring that can serve no purpose but to deceive.

Early science on this was somewhat “preliminary.” The left wing still went all in behind it and that raised suspicions of right wingers already being influenced by a massive disinformation campaign. As time progressed it became clearer and clearer that it was real. While that was happening, the disinformation campaign intensified.
Below the surface it’s pretty complicated science and aside from the basics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas most people don’t understand it very well, if at all. That makes it easy fodder for political war games.

@flutherother What is your source for negating the magnetosphere? NASA speaks highly of it for protecting us from a variety of energy issues originating from outside of our world. And they recognize it can impact our climate.
That is scientific fact. And isn’t energy what all the climate change supporters claim is causing elevation in temperatures? They claim it is heat being generated and captured through generation of carbonic gases. So if more energy is getting in because the magnetosphere is shrinking (less shielding) wouldn’t that give us the same net effect? And it is collapsing. Others agree.

And nowhere did I suggest putting on sunscreen somehow affect the magnetosphere. I was using sunscreen as a way of explaining why less shielding could impact us.

But interestingly, you ignore all the other aspects I mentioned. You just want to discount them without really addressing them. I guess if you start with the story you have been told and don’t ever question, then any other opinions are meaningless. Except most of what I mentioned makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

Some people DON’T understand science AND don’t want to understand it ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

@seawulf575 You are one source for my discounting of the magnetosphere. If you had any evidence, and I’m sure you looked for it, you would have provided it.

@flutherother Isn’t it interesting that you have provided NOTHING to support your side? I, on the other hand, have provided several articles. So apparently to you, no proof makes more sense than documented proof. So I will stop providing sources for you because they do not make any impact on you. You can’t even dispute what I gave you.

What I CAN tell you is that I have over 30 years in the nuclear power field and I understand radiation and shielding. What do you have?

Nobody Nobody not one of the twenty or so sites I skim each day denies
the climate is changing. What bothers me is…
—calling this to be a greater threat than terrorism.
—trying to turn ‘deniers’ into criminals.
—saying this is a more imminent threat than isis.
—using this as a cudgel to gain power by the elites.
—taking away our freedoms in the name of climate change.
—scaring children so much as to require professionals help.
—having no concrete answers yet demanding more more more money!
—the blowhard assholes like john kerry, al gore and celebrities who
proselytize this yet are the biggest polluters.
—giving control and sovereignty to global elites… what can go wrong?

Off the top of my head.

@WhyNow The topic would not be used as a political wedge issue if the Republicans would just agree that it is likely that we humans are contributing to climate change and work with the Democrats. They might not agree on some of the more extreme measures the Democrats want to take, but for the last 15 years they don’t want to acknowledge anything regarding the possibility that we are making it worse, to satisfy their “base” of the party. It makes no sense, the base is mostly very religious, and how can they be ok with all of the pollutants we are putting into God’s land, air, and seas. A lot of slowing climate change has to do with curbing pollutants.

It shouldn’t be a political issue. Not to the extent that it is.

Do you agree we are contributing to climate change or not?

I absolutely do! My Grandfather who loves the seas and oceans took me to
‘The Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ in the north pacific. Made us cry.

But does not negate the above points.

@JLeslie There is a huge step from “we humans are contributing to climate change” and “humans are the only cause of climate change”. That was one of the distinctions in the original IPCC evaluation. There were several lines of thought. 1. Humans are the sole cause of climate change, 2. Humans are not a contributor to climate change, 3. Humans are likely contributing to climate change but we cannot determine how much, and 4. Humans may be contributing but there are likely other factors at work. Here’s a clue: most of the votes of those doing the evaluation showed up in #3 and #4. Yet when the report came out (after it was presented to the bureaucrats and rewritten) it was presented as #1 and that the majority of those doing the study agreed.

I don’t think anyone would argue (not even me) that humans are contributing to issues in the atmosphere that might be impacting the climate. I do NOT believe for one moment that we are the sole cause. And my life has shown me that if you try solving a problem with incorrect data, you will likely NOT solve the problem. And those screaming about man-made climate change the loudest are not presenting any other real solutions other than “let us control carbon emissions”. And that solution is tyranny in the making. Think about it. What produces greenhouse gases? Fossil fuel usage, sure. But also you have to consider how that plays out in the real world. You could be told you have to move into some super-structure rather than your own home because it produces fewer carbon emissions to heat/cool one structure than millions. You could be told you have to only use public transportation or ride a bicycle wherever you want to go. You could be told what to eat since some foods take more carbon emissions to grow or harvest, or in the case of cows/pigs/chickens/etc, they contribute directly to carbon emissions. You could be told how many children you could have since people contribute. They might decide there is a maximum age for humans and you have to be euthanized when you hit it.

Yes, many of these things seem outlandish. Yet we already see the beginnings of many of them.

Meanwhile, going after things like protecting the rainforests or planting more trees and plants (since plants pull CO2, a contributor from the air) go unaddressed. Those screaming about the man-made carbon emissions are flying all over the globe on private jets and taking multiple car motorcades in the biggest polluting vehicles around to get where they want to go. The, hands-down, biggest polluter on the planet – China – is not held accountable. They are, in fact, treated as a third world developing nation and are left to do whatever they want for the next 20 or 30 years. And that after we are being told it is only a couple more years before the planet is uninhabitable.

The inconsistencies are rife with this issue. And these inconsistencies, to me, blow holes in the wild claims of those claiming climate change is real.

^^I don’t know anyone who thinks all of climate change is 100% only because of us humans. It really doesn’t matter if it’s 50% or 100%. It only matters that people basically agree on the antagonists and do some things to try to curb the increases in temperature.

You are focusing on things to be angry about or hate the other political side, that’s what the politicians want. The big picture for the environment is what should matter.

@JLeslie I’m not focusing on things to be angry about or to hate any political side. I’m questioning the official story which is what every American…every citizen of the world…should be doing. Again…if you see something that is wrong and you want to fix it you have to understand what all the variables are. If you purposely ignore some, the chances of fixing that problem goes way down. And I say this with the big picture of the environment in mind.

Think of it like this…I’m going to use a car analogy: You go out to your car and it won’t start. The possibilities are that the battery is dead, one of the battery terminals is loose, the starter or solenoid are bad, the alternator is shot or the belt is broken, or the engine is seized up. If you ignore all possibilities except one, you may or may not solve the problem. Let’s say you run out and buy a battery to replace your current one. But the serpentine belt is gone…it broke and fell off. So you replace the battery and the car still won’t start. You just wasted a whole lot of time, money, and effort and your car still won’t stop…the problem still exists and you still are not going anywhere. It will take you more time and more money to solve this mystery by “being sure” of your answer.

^^Think about it like this. I understand how the greenhouse effect works, I understand that we are supposed to be in a cooling cycle according to historical evidence (Milankovitch cycle) and instead we are heating up. I also feel pollution is bad. All those together I’m willing to do things to try to help the situation. You seem to want to do nothing. If you represent the Republicans then we just have to ignore you. You don’t want to err on the side of caution. Got it.

@JLeslie You know you are loved on this site but come on! You blame republicans
for a GLOBAL issue? You mimic ‘we will burn in 5 years’ and ‘the planet will die in
ten years’ok. You feel that giving away your freedoms and your money will help?
FINE!

‘If you represent the Republicans then we just have to ignore you.’ This just sounds
like you want to shut down any discussion and shove your ideas down the throat
of all unbelievers.

@WhyNow I blame Republicans for encouraging the disbelief of the problem. Do you want to do something in the US to slow the warming or not? Republican politicians play to the ignorant in the party. Other Republicans who care about the issue should stand up against that.

^^ You are so busy pontificating that you’re not reading or understanding any
of the above. In any case, good luck with your crusade.

@JLeslie at what point have I said I don’t want to do anything? I have suggested several things that need to be done, regardless of the cause. Yet I am calling out those that refuse to push those fixes because it makes no sense. I am calling out the official story because it shows glaring holes that they want to hide. If you were really serious about climate change, you’d do more than just blindly support people that have all the charm and honesty of a snake oil salesman.

@seawulf575 and @WhyNow So, how many Republican politicians are out there saying climate change is a real problem, the scientist are probably right, and pushing legislation for it?

I actually feel the Republicans at large are finally turning around on the issue, because it’s more worrisome to them now as Republican areas of the country are getting flooded and hit by tornadoes seemingly more and more. The politicians probably will have to ignore the nay sayers in the party. More and more. Luckily, they have the abortion issue at the forefront to maintain their wedge, and plenty of mass shootings lately. The Democrats have those same wedges on the flip side. Plus, gay rights seems under fire too.

@JLeslie I don’t give a hoot about party on this one. This goes beyond political party. The entire thing, from the start, has been a sham. Again, not because the climate isn’t changing, but from how it was addressed. And that started at the UN, not in the US. And they have continually come up with inaccuracies and out right falsehoods. Remember the story that Atlantic Hurricanes were being intensified because of man-made climate change? Every time we got a big hurricane it was touted that this would continue until we took actions to reduce our carbon footprint. Calls for climate change legislation would come out and there would be outrage. Interesting thing, though…the NOAA found out that the hurricanes were getting worse because the air was getting cleaner. Europe and North America have been really cutting back which put less pollution in the air. This allowed more sunlight to get through to heat the water which increased the frequency and strength of the hurricanes. We don’t see this in the Pacific since China is such a polluter. So which is it? Were carbon emissions causing the change of hurricanes or was the lack of carbon emissions doing it? In the end, it doesn’t matter to those that want control. They will claim it is all climate change because that is the buzz word that will stir the masses up.

@seawulf575 I’ll be interested to look into the findings and conclusion by that NOAA scientist. Thanks for the link.

The cleaner air is less air pollution and is causing the temperature increasing. The energy in a hurricane comes from the heat in the water and water temperatures are going up because there is less pollution, https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/weather/2022/05/13/surprising-study-shows-less-air-pollution-means-more-hurricanes.

The increasing temps is a reason coral is dying in Hawaii. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/habitat/coral-reefs/

A lot of people are lousy at assessing threats, lousy at making logical inferences, lousy at assessing the available data and evidence—and on top of all of that, will often not trust those who do know what they’re talking about because they’re also lousy at recognising legitimate expertise.

Climatology deals with some very complex and dynamic systems, which sometimes leaves room for some uncertainty, ambiguity, or even some surprising results and observations in some specific areas.

One trick climate deniers (and many other conspiracists) use, is to take some uncertainty or ambiguity, and use that to dismiss or attack the broader field as unreliable or evidence of some larger conspiracy—because these people are also lousy at handling and assessing uncertainty and ambiguous information.

There are just too many easily exploitable flaws and biases in human thinking, which is why we have things like a public relations industry, and advertising.

P.S. There’s literally zero evidence that the magnetosphere has anything to do with observed increases in global temperatures over the last few decades.

^^ “A lot of people are lousy at assessing threats” This triggers the shit out of me!
Except for some talking heads who just wanna piss you off (understandably) nobody
I know or read denies climate change.
Still…
You feel you are so righteous end of discussion!!!
You feel you are so righteous you want to shove your ideology down ‘those’ peoples’
throats if they still breathe then lock them up!

@WhyNow I’m addressing the question “Why do people still deny climate change”, and not “why can’t WhyNow find anyone who denies climate change?”

I still encounter climate change denial.

I also encounter a sort of “soft denialism”, which will accept “the climate is changing”, but then reject or spuriously question the overwhelming and unequivocal evidence of its cause (spoiler: it’s the atmospheric CO2, now at their highest levels in millions of years).

Or what some people do is accept the “climate is changing”, but massively downplay its risk, like say, putting it below a statistically negligible risk like “terrorism” (which really has been used by governments to ramp up authoritarianism).

@Kropotkin “Climatology deals with some very complex and dynamic systems, which sometimes leaves room for some uncertainty, ambiguity, or even some surprising results and observations in some specific areas.” True. Yet that doesn’t stop the Climate Nazis from screaming down anyone that dares to question that uncertain, ambiguous data and the results they draw from them. What you as climate deniers using those ambiguous, sometime contradictory results as a way to challenge the entire thing is exactly that same demand that they are wrong…screaming them down because they dare to question. I have raised many, many questions of the conclusions those people, like yourself, make. I have shown evidence from confirmed experts that shoot holes in everything that is brought forth as “fact” by people such as yourself.

Maybe if Climate crazies were to actually question ambiguous data and conclusions, we would be actually taking actions fix things other than demand that everyone give up control of their lives to a very few.

I know someone that is a DENIER ! ! !

@Tropical_Willie Your opinion. Stop being a troll.

NOT BEING a troll ! @WhyNow

Yes it is my opinion !!!!!!

May not be anyone on Fluther !

Last million years or so CO2 has oscillated between ~180–300 ppm. here is the last 50 years That’s our doing.

@Blackwater_Park dont forget that our ancestors killed every member of like 100 species thausounds years ago

@seawulf575 You’ve shown absolutely nothing except your own lack of understanding on the topic, and overconfidence to make any claims about it.

@Kropotkin And you have shown lack of ability to back up your own warped views.

@seawulf575 Here’s one for you https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/

@Koxufoxu Since life began on earth, there have been 5 Great Extinctions. Millions
of species, in fact way over 90% of all life perished. The real question is… How
do we blame all this on trump?

For the last 10,000 years or so the earth has been in a remarkably warm, stable climate. This looking past from Greenland ice cores over the last 100k years shows just how unstable things can get. We don’t want that so we must stop things that could upset the current balance. I do not think the current warming trend is catastrophic. I do think we are in unpredictable territory and that should scare everyone. We have it good now, very, very good. Humans are just not adapted to what could be.

The best bet for humans is to build a big space station. We must learn how to be a
‘space species.’ We need to learn how:
—Lessen the impact of radiation affecting our carbon based DNA,
—guard against the impact of micro meteors and space junk,
—negate the effect of low or no gravity on our gravity evolved bodies
and much more.

Going to Mars now is just a show and a silly waste of resources.

I would guess mostly Maslow’s hierarchy. Mixed in with denial as a defense mechanism. And lack of education.

@raum Why yes! We are stupid. Our eyes should turn to you to lead us.

Being educated isn’t necessarily about knowing more than everyone else.

Sometimes it’s about knowing that other people know more than you do.

I’m not a scientist.
I just believe in science.

Confirmation Bias.

When Anthropogenic Climate Change first debuted in the mid to late 80s, the evidence wasn’t that good. Good Faith Skepticism was the RIGHT response. What was being asked was huge (changing the entire economy), the evidence was weak, and this same group had been wrong 180 degrees less than a decade earlier when they told us we were going into a new ice age.

The problem is that the evidence changed and evolved, but the people who embraced skepticism didn’t adapt with the changing evidence. This is a natural human bias – we tend to stick with our first belief and cling to it tenaciously, disbelieving evidence to the contrary. This is how “good faith” skepticism becomes “bad faith” skepticism. The unwillingness to adapt to new information.

At this point the evidence that climate change is real, is mostly anthropogenic, and is a problem is just too big for any open-minded inquiry to conclude otherwise. There’s room to disagree about how fast or what the right solution is (and I think the left is wrong about both of those questions), but the right is wrong about core question.

We need
1) A revenue neutral, initially small, but predictably rising carbon tax & tariff
2) geoengineering
3) Nuclear fission and geothermal in rich countries
4) natural gas for poor countries
5) Terraforming to change desertifying regions ala the ‘green wall’ projects some countries are pursuing (but not enough).