Question for climate change deniers.

[OldWiseGuy]

Would you actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate climate change (global warming)?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, let's see: Every time the government(s) take charge of something, or take over something, instead of letting it keep working as it always did,
it got worse,
it got more expensive (sometimes from no cost to high oppressive cost) ,
it got more harmful to more people,
and more helpful to the powerful and rich ....


so , WHY ?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, let's see: Every time the government(s) take charge of something, or take over something, instead of letting it keep working as it always did,
it got worse,
it got more expensive (sometimes from no cost to high oppressive cost) ,
it got more harmful to more people,
and more helpful to the powerful and rich ....


so , WHY ?

The government is the only entity with enough money to mount a serious effort. Sometimes you have to 'give the devil his due'.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Would you actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate climate change (global warming)?

I can't speak for any climate change deniers but for myself I would want to know what the proposed effort was before I would be able to decide whether to actively oppose it or not.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The government is the only entity with enough money to mount a serious effort. Sometimes you have to 'give the devil his due'.

Not true,
and
not true ever.

 

[richard W. burcik]

Subject: Climate Change

Recently, on June 28, 2019, a scholarly journal that is maintained by the top-ranked journal Nature published a scientific research paper, titled "Intensified East Asian Winter Monsoon During the Last Geomagnetic Reversal Transition" by a group of Japanese scientists which found according to its lead investigator that "The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming, as well as, the warm period of the medieval era." When the journal Nature is willing to print such a contradictory piece of research it is clear that the science is in a state of flux. This remarkable finding confirmed the result found by Profs. Kauppinen & Malmi, both from Finland, in a paper titled "No Experimental Evidence For Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change" (June 29, 2019) that "... the (IPCC) models fail to derive the influence of low cloud cover fraction on global temperature. A too-small natural component results in a too-large portion for the contribution of greenhouse gases like CO2. The IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24 degrees C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature." The South China Morning Post on Aug. 11, 2019, next reported that "A new study has found winters in Northern China have been warming since 4000 BC -- regardless of human activity -- ". This research was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres and concluded that human activity "... appears to have little to due with increased greenhouse gases." The "driving forces include the Sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean" but "We have detected no evidence of human influence." This study's findings confirm an earlier study that was published in Scientific Reports in 2014. Most importantly, the lead investigator for the Kobe University research paper insisted that "... she is now more worried about cooling than warming." Compellingly, on Sept. 23, 2019, over 500 climate experts delivered a letter to UN secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, which states (in bold) that "THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY" and that "The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose." Amazingly, no mainstream news organization has reported any of these facts.

 

[charsan]

Would you actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate climate change (global warming)?

Yes because there is no such thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The government is the only entity with enough money to mount a serious effort. Sometimes you have to 'give the devil his due'.

The government is also the only entity that might enact something that would be useless in dealing with climate change but calling it a serious effort in order to expand the power of the government and curtail the rights of the individual using climate change as an excuse. Again, tell me what the effort entails and I can decide whether it should be opposed or not.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When the journal Nature is willing to print such a contradictory piece of research it is clear that the science is in a state of flux.

In other words: what "science" says, changes a lot (in a state of flux) ....... and may be best not to trust nor rely on it ?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes because there is no such thing.

Why the OP did not understand yours was the only answer a climate change denier could give is beyond my comprehension. It would be like asking an atheist if he/she would actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate the punishments of hell. When someone doesn't believe in the existence of something they become very suspicious of people asking them to comply with efforts do something about it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why the OP did not understand yours was the only answer a climate change denier could give is beyond my comprehension. It would be like asking an atheist if he/she would actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate the punishments of hell. When someone doesn't believe in the existence of something they become very suspicious of people asking them to comply with efforts do something about it.

Could you say this from the other opposing point of view with the understanding that they might not think about the things they said earlier, and helping them to comply with their own assertions concerning such things long before they might or might not happen, unless of course they are right about not being concerned with complying, forthwith they can instead become wary of not mitigating the discipline (or punishments) without
regard to the principles they once held but might disagree with today ?

THANKS !

 

[grasping the after wind]

In other words: what "science" says, changes a lot (in a state of flux) ....... and may be best not to trust nor rely on it ?

trust no one X files deep throat - Bing video

 

[grasping the after wind]

Could you say this from the other opposing point of view with the understanding that they might not think about the things they said earlier, and helping them to comply with their own assertions concerning such things long before they might or might not happen, unless of course they are right about not being concerned with complying, forthwith they can instead become wary of not mitigating the discipline (or punishments) without
regard to the principles they once held but might disagree with today ?

THANKS !

I could not say any of that.

 

[Ken Rank]

Would you actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate climate change (global warming)?

Yes because the assumption is that man is the cause. The climate changes, that is what it does. It wasn't man before, it isn't man now... and if we monkey around with the natural ebb and flow of the climate, we WILL have real problems.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Would you actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate climate change (global warming)?

That is like asking me if I would donate all my savings to prevent the tides from coming in, or the hurricanes from blowing, or the blizzards from freezing the land.
It is not that I do not support such things... but after all my savings as well has everyone else's savings burned away... the tides would still come in, the hurricanes would still blow, and the blizzards would still freeze the land.
I just think it is a fool's errand. Nature is going to do what it is going to do.
Used to be wars were the favorite method of national and corporate prosperity. I think people are wise to that. Now it is "climate change...". Let's bilk millions of people out of their money for a cause that will never succeed and is impossible to implement.

 

[Kris Jordan]

Would you actively oppose efforts to reverse or mitigate climate change (global warming)?

This may come across as being cocky or arrogant, but that is NOT my intention or desire. I apologize in advance if that is how it relays.

I am not schooled in global warming, for sure. But from what the Bible tells us, life will go on "as it always has" until God pours out His judgment upon the earth and it's ultimately destroyed by fire (not global warming). So I genuinely don't worry about spending the limited time I have on earth fighting or opposing things that really don't matter in the big picture. I'd rather spend it making a difference for eternity by ministering to the souls that will ultimately enter into it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I am not schooled in global warming, for sure. But from what the Bible tells us,

Since you brought it up (what the Bible tells us), note that long before 'global warming' was ever thought of to be news,
the Bible tells us "it will get so hot men will curse Yahweh(God)" (instead of calling on Him for help) ....
I think it might also say they will try to hide from the heat, in caves, etc , but am not sure about this part...

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Everything has its cost. If you want to chase your tail, then it's none of my concern, but when you try to make me chase mine, then I'm not inclined to cooperate.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Everything has its cost. If you want to chase your tail, then it's none of my concern, but when you try to make me chase mine, then I'm not inclined to cooperate.

If it happens as in the past,
they will find a way to make everyone pay, pay more, and keep paying.

 

[St_Worm2]

...the Bible tells us, life will go on "as it always has" until God pours out His judgment upon the earth and it's ultimately destroyed by fire (not global warming).

So the Bible does say that it's global warming* that finally destroys the earth

*(the only difference being that is warms up REALLY fast one day )

--David
p.s. - I really like what you had to say in your post sister