ChatterBank0 min ago
What Do The Climate Change Deniers Want?
54 Answers
Do they want to take a punt on being right and tough luck for our grandkids?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//We should reduce emissions because it's the right thing to do,…//
//The attitude of such as NJ reminds me of a parachutist who’s convinced his release cord won’t work and refuses to try it as he hurtles down..//
Neither of which answers my question.
//Hasn't anyone noticed how mild it is for the time of year ?//
Did you notice how cold it was last April? A lot colder than the year before and well below average for that time of year. It’s going to get colder next week. It’s called weather.
Back to the OP – the term “denier” is used as an insult. I have been accused of being a Covid “denier” on here more than once because I did not agree with the government’s strategy when handling it. Similarly with climate change. I don’t deny the climate is changing. It’s the government’s approach to dealing with it with which I take issue. It would be nice if people could recognise the difference.
//The attitude of such as NJ reminds me of a parachutist who’s convinced his release cord won’t work and refuses to try it as he hurtles down..//
Neither of which answers my question.
//Hasn't anyone noticed how mild it is for the time of year ?//
Did you notice how cold it was last April? A lot colder than the year before and well below average for that time of year. It’s going to get colder next week. It’s called weather.
Back to the OP – the term “denier” is used as an insult. I have been accused of being a Covid “denier” on here more than once because I did not agree with the government’s strategy when handling it. Similarly with climate change. I don’t deny the climate is changing. It’s the government’s approach to dealing with it with which I take issue. It would be nice if people could recognise the difference.
Therer are degrees of denial
Some do say the climate isn't changing, some acknowledge it's largely due to man-made factors but think there's no point doing anthing because certain countries won't play ball but indeed "climate change denial" does really mean "denial of man-made climate change"
But honestly, I don't know what other evidence people want.
Some do say the climate isn't changing, some acknowledge it's largely due to man-made factors but think there's no point doing anthing because certain countries won't play ball but indeed "climate change denial" does really mean "denial of man-made climate change"
But honestly, I don't know what other evidence people want.
"Similarly with climate change. I don’t deny the climate is changing."
but you do (in the face of all evidence) deny that it is caused by human activity... which is important... because if you did accept that then you'd have to accept that changing human activity would have an impact.
to answer your question... if the uk did it alone, then it would do nothing. the thing is that the uk is not actually the only country in the world there are actually other countries too... and so by co-operating with other countries we are able to do something about the problem in conjunction with others, a bit like we try to do with all other global problems that don't just concern one place.
but you do (in the face of all evidence) deny that it is caused by human activity... which is important... because if you did accept that then you'd have to accept that changing human activity would have an impact.
to answer your question... if the uk did it alone, then it would do nothing. the thing is that the uk is not actually the only country in the world there are actually other countries too... and so by co-operating with other countries we are able to do something about the problem in conjunction with others, a bit like we try to do with all other global problems that don't just concern one place.
//Back to the OP – the term “denier” is used as an insult.//
My dictionary defines 'deny' as 'to gainsay or declare that something is not true'. So 'denier' seems a perfectly acceptable word to use to describe someone who declares that something is not true. What other word would you use to describe them?
When it comes to pejorative language, NJ, you have previous form. A face mask is a 'wet rag', COP26 is a 'jamboree'. Yet you never take issue with people who describe climate change activists as 'eco-loonies' or 'climate zealots'. People in glass houses...
My dictionary defines 'deny' as 'to gainsay or declare that something is not true'. So 'denier' seems a perfectly acceptable word to use to describe someone who declares that something is not true. What other word would you use to describe them?
When it comes to pejorative language, NJ, you have previous form. A face mask is a 'wet rag', COP26 is a 'jamboree'. Yet you never take issue with people who describe climate change activists as 'eco-loonies' or 'climate zealots'. People in glass houses...
//How many are actually disputing climate change?//
10CS, for one.
//// If you are referring to "The science" of man made climate change that is very disputable.////
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that is beyond dispute. CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation, O2 and N2 molecules do not.
The proportion of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has risen substantially since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Radiocarbon dating shows that much of the carbon is depleted of Carbon-14, which is consistent with it coming from fossil fuels. Where is the evidence that mankind is not largely responsible for climate change?
10CS, for one.
//// If you are referring to "The science" of man made climate change that is very disputable.////
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that is beyond dispute. CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation, O2 and N2 molecules do not.
The proportion of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has risen substantially since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Radiocarbon dating shows that much of the carbon is depleted of Carbon-14, which is consistent with it coming from fossil fuels. Where is the evidence that mankind is not largely responsible for climate change?
//…to answer your question... if the uk did it alone, then it would do nothing.//
I completely agree. So let’s have a look at some of the major polluters’ positions (that is, those without whose co-operation little influence on the climate will be noticed) following the jamboree in Glasgow. I’m talking about China, USA, India and Russia. These four between them produce more carbon emissions that all the other countries combined. China alone burns more coal than the rest of the world’s total.
China – their head of state didn’t bother to travel to Glasgow (at least he saved his carbon emissions). China has declined to sign up to the pacts to reduce methane and fossil fuel use. It pushed back at pledges to reduce funding for fossil fuel development. Instead President Xi sent a short note to the conference: “Developed countries not only need to do more in their own countries, but also need to provide support to developing countries in order to help them do better.” This could have been reduced to two words, the second of which is “off”.
The USA – the worlds largest producer and consumer of natural gas, producing 22% of the world’s total. President Biden talks a good talk. He has a number of policies designed to reduce emissions but there is considerable doubt in the USA whether he will be able to get them approved by Congress. As an aside, much of the 250 sq. miles cleared annually of mature forest to fuel Drax power station with processed wood is in the USA.
India – “Unexpectedly” pledged to reduce to net zero by 2070 – two decades beyond the UK’s ambitious but largely unachievable target. So in fifty years, India will have got there – perhaps. And this is an “emergency”.
Russia – the world’s second largest producer of natural gas with 15% of global production. It has recently introduced a “net zero” target date of 2060. Quite how this will be achieved is a little unclear as its energy strategy to 2035, adopted in 2021, focuses almost exclusively on promoting fossil fuel extraction, consumption, and export to the rest of the world.
A few other minor players are worth a mention. As I pointed out yesterday, Australia will continue its extraction of coal and intends, using it and selling it to anybody who will buy it. Germany is the worlds fourth largest consumer of coal – ahead of Russia. It burns six times as much as the UK, most of it imported.
Without concerted action by the top four as a minimum there is absolutely no chance of the rest of the world having any meaningful influence over the climate. Anything that the UK does will simply be virtue signalling. The PM’s strategy is specific – it is to reduce global temperature increases. It is so specific that even a temperature rise upper limit of 1.5 degrees is cited. It will become clear at the end of this week (as if it needed pointing out) that the major polluters are simply not on board to a sufficient degree to enable this target to be met. If a fortnight in Glasgow among 40,000 like-minded souls fails to persuade them, the UK “doing its bit” will certainly not. So it’s back to square one. Whatever the UK does will make no difference and the nations who are able to make a difference show little inclination to do so. So the best use of the UK’s limited funds would be to use them to mitigate the effects of climate change rather than pointlessly trying to prevent it.
I completely agree. So let’s have a look at some of the major polluters’ positions (that is, those without whose co-operation little influence on the climate will be noticed) following the jamboree in Glasgow. I’m talking about China, USA, India and Russia. These four between them produce more carbon emissions that all the other countries combined. China alone burns more coal than the rest of the world’s total.
China – their head of state didn’t bother to travel to Glasgow (at least he saved his carbon emissions). China has declined to sign up to the pacts to reduce methane and fossil fuel use. It pushed back at pledges to reduce funding for fossil fuel development. Instead President Xi sent a short note to the conference: “Developed countries not only need to do more in their own countries, but also need to provide support to developing countries in order to help them do better.” This could have been reduced to two words, the second of which is “off”.
The USA – the worlds largest producer and consumer of natural gas, producing 22% of the world’s total. President Biden talks a good talk. He has a number of policies designed to reduce emissions but there is considerable doubt in the USA whether he will be able to get them approved by Congress. As an aside, much of the 250 sq. miles cleared annually of mature forest to fuel Drax power station with processed wood is in the USA.
India – “Unexpectedly” pledged to reduce to net zero by 2070 – two decades beyond the UK’s ambitious but largely unachievable target. So in fifty years, India will have got there – perhaps. And this is an “emergency”.
Russia – the world’s second largest producer of natural gas with 15% of global production. It has recently introduced a “net zero” target date of 2060. Quite how this will be achieved is a little unclear as its energy strategy to 2035, adopted in 2021, focuses almost exclusively on promoting fossil fuel extraction, consumption, and export to the rest of the world.
A few other minor players are worth a mention. As I pointed out yesterday, Australia will continue its extraction of coal and intends, using it and selling it to anybody who will buy it. Germany is the worlds fourth largest consumer of coal – ahead of Russia. It burns six times as much as the UK, most of it imported.
Without concerted action by the top four as a minimum there is absolutely no chance of the rest of the world having any meaningful influence over the climate. Anything that the UK does will simply be virtue signalling. The PM’s strategy is specific – it is to reduce global temperature increases. It is so specific that even a temperature rise upper limit of 1.5 degrees is cited. It will become clear at the end of this week (as if it needed pointing out) that the major polluters are simply not on board to a sufficient degree to enable this target to be met. If a fortnight in Glasgow among 40,000 like-minded souls fails to persuade them, the UK “doing its bit” will certainly not. So it’s back to square one. Whatever the UK does will make no difference and the nations who are able to make a difference show little inclination to do so. So the best use of the UK’s limited funds would be to use them to mitigate the effects of climate change rather than pointlessly trying to prevent it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.