Posted on 05/22/2023 2:44:02 PM PDT by DallasBiff
It’s hard to believe, but apparently more than a few climate change deniers still roam our ever-heating planet. According to a recent study in the esteemed science journal PLOS, people systematically understate their disbelief in human-caused climate change when answering surveys, so skepticism is more prevalent than many of us realize.
Given the urgency of the climate crisis, it’s crucial that we all do our part to educate any doubters we might encounter. That’s why the Rainforest Alliance has compiled six arguments commonly made by climate change deniers, along with science-backed responses you can deploy to convince them of the truth: that climate change is real, accelerating, and that we need to take bold action ASAP
1. Climate change denier claim: “This is the coldest winter we’ve had in years! So much for global warming.”
There’s a difference between climate and weather: Weather fluctuates day in, day out, whereas climate refers to long term trends—and the overall trend is clearly and indisputably a warming one. While the impacts of climate change have only just begun to hit the Global North, farmers in the tropics have been contending with impacts—from droughts to floods to a proliferation of crop-destroying pests—for years
(Excerpt) Read more at rainforest-alliance.org ...
Try educating me leftist anti science morons and see what happens.
I don’t care if the subject is climate change or the mass of a proton. True science not only tolerates debate, it encourages debate.
The climate change folks want to shut down all debate. It’s their way or the highway. Disagree with them, and you will be shouted down and then cancelled.
That’s not science. It’s fascism.
That’s the best the Communist climate change crazies have. They call climate realists “climate deniers,” as if they don’t think climate even exists. Hey, Commie crazies, it’s called “natural climate variability,” and that big orange ball 93 million miles away is the cause.
Wat, no barf alert?!?
Given the urgency of the climate crisis...............
Brought to you by the same keen minds that brought us wu-flu and kept us informed about it for the past two years, the same people who brought us the Russian puppet Donald Trump, the same people who brought to you our flourishing economy, the same people who are going to cure our national debt problem....... and are now going to manage the climate.
As you can see, I am a true believer, These people are the right hand of God....or is it the right hand of Lucifer?
Ask them what a woman is.
6 Claims Made by Climate Change Skeptics—and How to Respond with 6 straw man presuppositions.
/\
Pete Buttigieg tells the Austria World Summit:
“Climate change is a major threat to security and prosperity ... Stories of climate disaster have always been on humanity’s mind in some fashion, dating back to ancient legends and scriptural traditions!”
The climate cultists won’t listen to what I have to say, so why should I listen to them?
pre·sup·po·si·tion
/ˌprēˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
plural noun: presuppositions
a thing tacitly assumed beforehand
at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.
/\
presupposition # 1 :
more than a few climate change deniers still roam...
presupposition # 2 :
our ever-heating planet.
presupposition # 3 :
esteemed science journal PLO
presupposition # 4 :
people systematically understate their disbelief
presupposition # 5 :
skepticism is more prevalent than many of us realize.
presupposition # 6 :
climate crisis,
presupposition # 7 :
science-backed responses
presupposition # 8:
the truth: that climate change is real,
presupposition # 9 :
we need to take bold action ASAP
/\
You get the drift of the grift.
As a confirmed denier, I like to ask the tree huggers why climate data has to be falsified? And why deniers in academia are cancelled, fired and threatened if they dissent from the orthodoxy? Why are they so afraid of dissent? What is to be done with CO2 producers in Asia, where most of it comes from?
Argument 1 is contradictory. If cold weather does not prove an absence of warming then hot weather cannot prove it happens
Well, there are actually only 28 computer Global Circulation Models, run by 22 different government labs.
Problem is, NONE have been accurate over even 20 years of real world measurements. If ANY were correct, ONE would track real world measurements.
NONE DO.
ALL over-estimate future temperatures.
One might learn more to ask instead of what is the answer to climate change, what is the motive for one’s answer to it.
Climate change skeptics:
* reality
* prosperity
* faith in mankind
Climate change worshippers:
* mankind is bad
* prosperity is bad
* evidence doesn’t matter, we’re all gonna die
* you’re a racist
C02 is .04% of the atmosphere. Not a typo. 400 molecules per million. When they say C02 is up xx% [350 to 450 per million, for example], they need to dilute the sample size to “parts per million” in their stats because otherwise it wouldn’t show up in any measurable amount. [BTW, atmospheric water in the atmosphere is 1,000x greater]
They say increasing a C02 sample size from 350 to 450 per million is the cause of temp fluctuations planet-wide, and flatly dismiss the Sun as even a contributing factor, even though the Sun is responsible for 100% of the warmth of this planet.
Climate alarmists claim a change of 1-2Celcius during the next 100 years will boil the oceans, burn the forests, melt the ice caps, & destroy all humanity. Yet.....
During the Roman Optimum, 200BC to 400AD, temps averaged from a low of 3 to a high of 5 Celsius warmer than today’s average. Called the ‘optimum’ since it brought forward unheralded prosperity, crops, game, etc. If it was so much warmer then, only a blink ago in terms of this planet’s existence, how did humanity survive at all? Huh. Why was there no mass die-off? No planet-wide catastrophes? Huh.
About 10k years ago, where I’m standing now, the land was under 2 miles of ice, as was much of the norther hemisphere. It all melted. How? Did the globe warm? Huh. Why did it get so cold in the first place? Huh.
OK lefties, reconcile. Go!
Ask your local greenie the following question.
How can a trace element (CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere) that is essential for life be a pollutant that’s going to destroy the planet?
The claim that increases in CO2 have brought disaster is a patent lie. Not a distortion, an outright lie.
The past several decades have seen a dramatic increase in plant life on earth due exclusively to increase in CO2. Carbon dioxide is critical to the very existence of plants. the more C02 the more plants. It really is just that simple.
So my question is, “How is an increase in plants on earth a catastrophic crisis?”
Climate ping...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.