- Location
- London
Climate change denial is a really astonishing manifestation of humanity's capacity for deliberate imbecility.
With that it is impossible to disagree. Welcome back, Mark, and do tell us what you have been drinking.Of course, we should try to arrest, or at least modify, the changes which global warming will bring about. Since most of the proposed measures will also reduce or even eliminate pollution, they should be warmly welcomed.
Well argued, Mark, but I think you´ve made some false equivalences and leaps that downplay the seriousness of what´s actually happening. It´s easier to break down my reasoning into two parts:As Tom says, no-one but an imbecile could deny that climate change is happening, quite rapidly and with serious effects, often unpredicted.
Actually, we're technically still in an ice age. What ended 12,000 years ago is the last inter-glacial period.The last ice age ended only 12,000 years ago, a mere blip in the history of the planet.
Climate change is now clearly undeniable, but for the past 30 or more years, there have been numerous cases of people - many of them relatively powerful politicians, including US presidents, and of course the network of fossil-fuel-comany shills - who have outright denied that it exists. To be honest, I find it quite dfficult to believe that you can deny the existence of the denial. If there's no such thing, why is there a very lengthy, well-footnoted Wikipedia entry entitled 'Climate change denial'?Is there any such thing as “climate change denial”?
I’ve never seen or heard such a thing.
I would have thought climate change is undeniable, it’s the cause and solution that are subjects of debate.
But it is equally absurd to predict the extermination of humanity, or the end of the world, resulting from the current warming phase. In each of the very recent warmings, vast amounts of methane will have been released from the tundra in Asia and Canada, yet the planet has been able to cope with it. Major volcanic eruptions have caused large climate disruptions, albeit for only a year or two at a time, and there are likely to be many more. The recent evacuation of Goma in the DRC illustrates the likely consequences.
But saying the ‘science isn’t proven’ is exactly part of being a denier Steve.
there’s really only options related to transport, fly less or not at all, switch to an EV when practical in your car life cycle) and diet (reduce meat and dairy and replace with sensible alternatives). With switching to solar at home coming next.
This is a concern (similar to my point above). I've seen enough signs of bending of the truth here in search of greenwash or grants!or so the supplier tells me!
I'm afraid I completely disagree with this. It's blindingly obvious that we're releasing huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. It's also blindlingly obvious that this is having a very, very significant impact on the climate. We don't need to know how significant the effect is to five decimal figures before we start doing something about it. As Russell said, questioning the science and suggesting it "needs to be improved to join the dots successfully" is straight out of the deniers' playbook. It's like creationists pointing to gaps in the palaeontological record and saying that those gaps invalidate the theory of evolution by natural selection.Until we can accurately work out the expected natural baseline of climate change, it will be almost impossible to proactively target reduction in CO2, and then subsequently measure the success.
I'm afraid I completely disagree with this. It's blindingly obvious that we're releasing huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. It's also blindlingly obvious that this is having a very, very significant impact on the climate. We don't need to know how significant the effect is to five decimal figures before we start doing something about it. As Russell said, questioning the science and suggesting it "needs to be improved to join the dots successfully" is straight out of the deniers' playbook. It's like creationists pointing to gaps in the palaeontological record and saying that those gaps invalidate the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Yes sorry Russell meant to say that you'd just said it!Yes, as I said above.
I promise not to have any more.
By far the most effective impact an individual can have is to not have children. It outweighs any other choices we might make. Has anyone taken climate change that seriously here? If not maybe you should consider it. if half the planet did it our emissions would significantly shift in a generation.