I've heard the argument made that it's better to stop burning fossil fuel, even if you're a climate change denier for reasons like this.
Even if you think climate change is a hoax, why not reduce pollution anyway?
replies(5):
Even if you think climate change is a hoax, why not reduce pollution anyway?
However, some things that are regarded as renewable (e.g. wood burning, such as the notorious Drax power station in the UK) are more polluting than fossil fuels. Personally I doubt they are even effective at CO₂ reduction. What we need is clean energy.
Do you think the world might have made these regions unstable because they have the oil?
Yes, those people are mostly imbeciles.
They argue that because Obama has a house near the ocean… and because people fly…
You can have a discussion with them but be prepared to start over in the same place the next time the subject comes up.
Have people meddled since? Of course. Such is how power works. But you'd have to go back to Roman times to find a period of stability in the middle east, and the factors that led to that have nothing to do with Oil.
Maybe try listening to them. After all, scientists did switch from "global warming" to an unspecific term like "climate change", which gives them a reason for distrust. Same for other aspects of scientific notion, like distrust against scientists when they and politicians tried to cover up information on COVID and COVID vaccines.
They’re imbeciles!
By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally might be cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, etc.
Hence, climate change seems to better convey what people actually see.
Should we review what climate scientists actually said in the 1970s next?
What’s your favorite anecdotal (ie non science) story you go to?
It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.
At any rate, is there any climate change belief that you would like to discuss?
Try to stay on topic. Digression is a common tactic. People quickly like to change the subject when they run into someone who knows why they are wrong.
https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissi...
Quantifying methane emissions from United States landfills https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi7735
I don't think beauty has anything to do with it. Climate change has very negative concrete effects on human civilization that justify the effort we should put (but don't) into limiting it. Generally pollution is nocive to human health which is why we strive to avoid it too.
I think talking about "beauty" moves the debate away from rational arguments. The reason we do all this is to preserve a world where humans can have comfortable lives, without additional health risks adding up and with enough access to necessities (food, water, shelter, breathable air compatible with human survival (never too long above 35C wet-bulb)).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jtg9qBq110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgMagIqZNuA
I'm not a politician. I don't offer policies. But I did specify policies, based on policies that have been proposed, and some that are thankfully being implemented. But unreasonable people want extremist implementations, and go against reasonable policies.
I'm being as specific as it gets. Now, you can try keeping me on the defense, or give in and admit I've proved my point.
The first video said nothing about climate change. (By the way DDT was banned.) The second started with Greta. I stopped immediately. None of it was science.
Chris Wallace interview did nothing. No gotcha moments there.
No wonder you have issues.
Keep it simple. Tell me what we have wrong about climate change and I’ll clear it up.
Those are not videos I watch, but they are viral videos watched by people who want to believe that information. You need to start following what I'm actually saying. Another direct piece of evidence for what I very, very clearly stated. This will be my last reply because I've answered you directly and to the point, and you keep deflecting with some irrelevant rabbit trail.