• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is man-made climate change denial a conspiracy theory?

Is AGW denial a conspiracy theory

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 50.5%

  • No

    Votes: 46 49.5%
  • Total voters
    93
Aristaeus

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
3,998
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
All the typical signs are there:

A rejection of established scientific consensus
A global collusion of lies
The continued silence of thousands of people
 
Aristaeus said:
All the typical signs are there:

A rejection of established scientific consensus
A global collusion of lies
The continued silence of thousands of people
Click to expand...

That describes the situation of Relativity Theory in the first years of the last century.
 
Aristaeus said:
All the typical signs are there:

A rejection of established scientific consensus
A global collusion of lies
The continued silence of thousands of people
Click to expand...

There's also the SCIENTIFIC evidence that the world has been warmer in this interglacial and all interglacials with concentrations of CO2 far below today's level.

Warming has occurred before absent the popularly cited cause.

WHY must warming today be due to Anthropogenic emissions?

WHY must warming be viewed as bad?

Why is the level of 280 ppm considered to be perfect?

Just wondering...
 
That depends on what, exactly, is being denied (or doubted). To deny (or doubt) that climate changes have occurred or have been properly documented is different than to deny (or doubt) that a specific level of climate change will occur or has occurred only due to a specific single variable's change - the latter is where most "deniers" (or "doubters") seem to fall.
 
Aristaeus said:
All the typical signs are there:

A rejection of established scientific consensus
A global collusion of lies
The continued silence of thousands of people
Click to expand...
post-25810-nevermind-gif-it-crowd-imgur-yvca.gif
 
Crap, they're onto us.
 
Is man-made climate change denial a conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

No.

Only the mad deny that the climate changes.

Then again only the scientifically stupid and the very occaisional corrupt scientist says that humanity causes any significant impact on the world's climate. That would be using the word significant to describe something that is big. Not just measurable, ie, normal English usage. At least anything significantly bad.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That depends on what, exactly, is being denied (or doubted). To deny (or doubt) that climate changes have occurred or have been properly documented is different than to deny (or doubt) that a specific level of climate change will occur or has occurred only due to a specific single variable's change - the latter is where most "deniers" (or "doubters") seem to fall.
Click to expand...
It's still bothers me that for those that don't believe in man made climate change, why do you fight for it so incredibly hard. This also matches your view of the environment. Your position is such that your for breathing in dirty air, like hydrocarbons. If you believe in burning coal, and gasoline, and oil in general.

You think global warming means losing a philosophical debate about the economy.

Some simply don't give a s*** about the environment[emoji23]

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Dirt Sands said:
It's still bothers me that for those that don't believe in man made climate change, why do you fight for it so incredibly hard. This also matches your view of the environment. Your position is such that your for breathing in dirty air, like hydrocarbons. If you believe in burning coal, and gasoline, and oil in general.

You think global warming means losing a philosophical debate about the economy.

Some simply don't give a s*** about the environment[emoji23]

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I believe, and could offer documentation for, the "root cause" of many, many environmental problems to be the quadrupling (from 2.5B to 10B) of the world's population in 150 years. More folks = more environmental problems is damned hard to deny but also politically bad news for the "take immediate action" crowd to address.

IMHO, many are so fond of the proposed solutions (worldwide income redistribution?) to fight "climate change" that they tune out many other things and, when you bring that up, they accuse you of denying "accepted science".

Can you give me any reason to deny (or doubt) the "science" of having ever more humans will result in ever more environmental damage no matter how "green" we make power plants or cars?
 
At this point, yes.

The scientific evidence plus the evidence of weather events is overwhelming at this point. The sectors of society that are in active denial or funding denial can be easily pointed out because the contrast has become so clear.

The only human beings denying that there's a problem are the ones who will continue to personally profit if policy doesn't change.
 
Rather than conspiracy theory, I view it as a selective abandonment of science and technology for the sake of political convenience/expediency.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I believe, and could offer documentation for, the "root cause" of many, many environmental problems to be the quadrupling (from 2.5B to 10B) of the world's population in 150 years. More folks = more environmental problems is damned hard to deny but also politically bad news for the "take immediate action" crowd to address.

IMHO, many are so fond of the proposed solutions (worldwide income redistribution?) to fight "climate change" that they tune out many other things and, when you bring that up, they accuse you of denying "accepted science".

Can you give me any reason to deny (or doubt) the "science" of having ever more humans will result in ever more environmental damage no matter how "green" we make power plants or cars?
Click to expand...
Even more people is responsible for some parts of global environmental impacts of species. We are losing species at the fastest rates in 65 million years. As far as the concerns for the environment, living green is a new concept having only caught on in the last couple of decades.

It must be given a chance.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Rogue Valley said:
Rather than conspiracy theory, I view it as a selective abandonment of science and technology for the sake of political convenience/expediency.
Click to expand...

And then there are the simpletons who ask why artifacts and actual human remains are found under retreating ice..............right?

Yep...........those stupid questions!
 
Dirt Sands said:
Even more people is responsible for some parts of global environmental impacts of species. We are losing species at the fastest rates in 65 million years. As far as the concerns for the environment, living green is a new concept having only caught on in the last couple of decades.

It must be given a chance.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Giving something a chance is often the clever way of saying let the government control something. What, exactly, is "living green" and why does it not now have a chance?
 
Dirt Sands said:
Even more people is responsible for some parts of global environmental impacts of species. We are losing species at the fastest rates in 65 million years. As far as the concerns for the environment, living green is a new concept having only caught on in the last couple of decades.

It must be given a chance.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Human encroachment is responsible....not climate.
 
Is man-made climate change denial a conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

i'd say not quite. it approaches CT in some ways, but doesn't quite get there.
 
RetiredUSN said:
And then there are the simpletons who ask why artifacts and actual human remains are found under retreating ice..............right?
Click to expand...
And then we have the plumbers and the landscapers who believe they know more than PhD.s who study/sample climate for a living. Go figure :shrug:
 
Rogue Valley said:
And then we have the plumbers and the landscapers who believe they know more than PhD.s who study/sample climate for a living. Go figure :shrug:
Click to expand...

Did I mention anything about knowing more?

No....... I didn't.

And you want to act pompous while being just as ignorant?

Climatology is still in it's infancy........................ just in case you cared to consider this fact.
 
Depends. Those who just claim the scientists are wrong aren't advancing a conspiracy theory. Those who claim all those climate scientists are lying ARE advancing a conspiracy theory.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Climatology is still in it's infancy........................ just in case you cared to consider this fact.
Click to expand...

Climatology has been around for at least 400 years.
 
Aristaeus said:
All the typical signs are there:

A rejection of established scientific consensus
A global collusion of lies
The continued silence of thousands of people
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory position. Another sign is the outright rejection of any contrary evidence as 'part of a globalist/left-wing agenda.' That is the problem with many CTs, they cannot be swayed by contradicting information because it is just assumed to be a lie/coverup.
 
What would it take for a denier to change their mind? I'm serious here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom