How can we destroy climate change sceptics?

[Bast]

It seems unfair that any good done by those who understand climate change and are doing something positive about it also benefits those who are trying to detract us.

I wish there was at least like a public record or something so we can shame them. Or will it destroy them in the future to know that they've been wrong all this time? I doubt it, most of them are shameless. Most of them completely denied it and now are denying it's not anthropogenic.

 

[Quackers]

Its been happening for 30 years...

 

[Cutlass]

We shouldn't. We should keep the skeptics active so that the scientists are kept on their toes. The deniers who base their denial on politics or money on the other hand should be destroyed.

 

[Zelig]

How can we destroy climate change sceptics?

With climate change!

 

[Quackers]

We shouldn't. We should keep the skeptics active so that the scientists are kept on their toes. The deniers who base their denial on politics or money on the other hand should be destroyed.

How about acceptors? Like Al Gore I hear he has plenty of shares in alternative energy companies

 

[Princeps]

Not sceptics, deniers.

 

[Cutlass]

How about acceptors? Like Al Gore I hear he has plenty of shares in alternative energy companies

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, people should put their money where their mouths are. The people who suck are the ones who believe either for or against, not on the evidence, but on the political possition of people or party that they support on other subjects. And the people who stand to make a great deal more money or gain in other ways if the other side looses, regardless of what the outcomes for the people as a whole are.

 

[Godwynn]

It seems unfair that any good done by those who understand climate change and are doing something positive about it also benefits those who are trying to detract us.

Do it for the good of humanity.

 

[Quackers]

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, people should put their money where their mouths are. The people who suck are the ones who believe either for or against, not on the evidence, but on the political possition of people or party that they support on other subjects. And the people who stand to make a great deal more money or gain in other ways if the other side looses, regardless of what the outcomes for the people as a whole are.

So its ok for oil companies to deny climate change (for instance) than push that side onto politiicians because they got a lot of money tied up in it?

 

[Camikaze]

The best way to prove sceptics wrong is to not take any action against it, and view the consequences. Of course, there are other problems associated with that. I do envisage, however, action being taken, and then sceptics saying in 50 years that nothing happened and it was all a giant scam, for the simple reason that the action taken was effective.

 

[Cutlass]

So its ok for oil companies to deny climate change (for instance) than push that side onto politiicians because they got a lot of money tied up in it?

That's not what I said. It is never ok to push science that you know to be untrue. Nor is it ever ok to pay others to do so. But if you believe in something, and the evidence backs it, then it's cool to invest in that.

 

[capslock]

If we have enough documentaries, concerts, festivals, summits, and meetings, we will be able to stem the tide of global warming, for sure. Nothing stops environmental change like a rockin U2 concert.

 

[innonimatu]

It seems unfair that any good done by those who understand climate change and are doing something positive about it also benefits those who are trying to detract us.

I wish there was at least like a public record or something so we can shame them. Or will it destroy them in the future to know that they've been wrong all this time? I doubt it, most of them are shameless. Most of them completely denied it and now are denying it's not anthropogenic.

First, learn to write. Most skeptics are refusing to believe in the case for anthropogenic warming, nor "denying it's not" anthropogenic - that's the "warmists/environmentalists" case.

Second, reinstate the Spanish Inquisition and burn anyone who disagrees with whatever you call "scientific consensus" at the state, as heretics. That's surely the way science is meant to be done.

 

[Shekwan]

Create the first enviro-republic! The highest crime against the state shall be denial of climate change, the penalty for which shall be being fired into the sun by an enourmous spud gun.

 

[Bast]

First, learn to write. Most skeptics are refusing to believe in the case for anthropogenic warming, nor "denying it's not" anthropogenic - that's the "warmists/environmentalists" case.

First, maybe you should take your own advice.

Second, people like you were singing a different tune years ago and will be yet different again in a few years time. Deny while you can.

Don't get angry at me because you don't understand the evidence sweetie, take it out your brain.

 

[Bast]

We shouldn't. We should keep the skeptics active so that the scientists are kept on their toes. The deniers who base their denial on politics or money on the other hand should be destroyed.

That's a good point.

 

[Kerozine]

iono, but im skeptical of the soundness of their rationale for such a position.

 

[Berzerker]

It seems unfair that any good done by those who understand climate change and are doing something positive about it also benefits those who are trying to detract us.

I wish there was at least like a public record or something so we can shame them. Or will it destroy them in the future to know that they've been wrong all this time? I doubt it, most of them are shameless. Most of them completely denied it and now are denying it's not anthropogenic.

Where are these people who understand climate change? Look at all the competing theories to explain the recent little ice age. Oh yeah, what a wonderful time that was

 

[Labtec600]

Let time tell who is right and wrong?


Didnt all the great minds believe the world was entering the next ice age 30 years ago?

 

[Bill3000]

Didnt all the great minds believe the world was entering the next ice age 30 years ago?

No, they didn't. Why is this myth being repeated?