Why do people not want to help the environment?

[hardtofindinthefuture]

So, it seems like when you mention the worlds "Global warming" anyone over the age of 50 they would tell you its a myth..its not..

And these same redneck idiots have very efficient chevy diesel 4x4 that look something like this

Spoiler

 

Not signed in

Always seem to not care about the earth and that kinda pisses me off

And those same people do bullshit like this

1. Thow WATER in the trash

2. Dont use recycle

3. throw trash in the recycle

4. Modify there fucking septic tank to output to a lake (this actually happened)

 

 

These people are fucking stupid

But, hey that just my opinion

 

[Guest]

1. Water is not holdable therefore you can't throw it

2. and 3. Huh? Don't use Recycle but throw trash in recycle?

4. You wanna dump to a lake? WHY

 

[GreenToxon]

It's a lot of effort to really help save the environment. And sometimes recycled things are more expensive. It's a lot easier to just be lazy and not care. Especially since global warming/climate change happens over a long period of time so it's harder to make that connection of "I don't help the environment we all suffer later."

 

Also, most pollution and damage is caused by industry and big corporations. It costs a lot of money to be "green" so why would they do it?  

[hardtofindinthefuture]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Water is not holdable therefore you can't throw it

1. Throw H20 that is contained in a solid container that has a higher volume than wich the liquid is contained in.

[AlwaysFSX]

I do magnitudes less harm to the environment than companies and governments, so bitch at them instead of somebody like me.

[yathis]

Its human nature

Its hard work

Humans are lazy

Climate Change de-liars are paid off.

[Monkey Dust]

The adjustments to the average westerners needed to live sustainably would be massive, and adjustments very few would be willing to make. Sure plenty of people make token gestures, they recycle, buy a hybrid or full EV, but are still miles off living sustainably. Probably the only ones who do are the Amish.

 

 

[Corrupt_Liberty]

The climate changes.  Nobody disputes that.  What is disputed is the cause.  Scientists have shown that the climate is changing.  I've read plenty of studies that back this up.  Scientists have shown that CO2 levels are rising.  There are plenty of studies to back that up.  I have read tons of studies trying to form my own opinion on the matter instead of just spewing forth whatever random crap I heard from someone else.  But you know what I haven't seen?  A study that links the two.  Correlation is not causation.  I have read hundreds of books preaching the horrors of human behavior but not once has any of them shown a link between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature. If we can't decide on CAUSATION then what are we spending TRILLIONS on to fix?  Lets not forget that the temperature of the earth has been fluctuating for MILLIONS of years.  What is the temperature supposed to be?  What's the perfect temperature of the earth?  Climate Alarmists can't answer that one either.  So with no causation and no goal for a solution the only thing we're spending money on is making alarmist "green" activists rich.  

 

Do your own research and stop wasting everyone's time and money.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[Sakkura]

On 3/11/2017 at 8:28 AM, Corrupt_Liberty said:

The climate changes.  Nobody disputes that.  What is disputed is the cause.  Scientists have shown that the climate is changing.  I've read plenty of studies that back this up.  Scientists have shown that CO2 levels are rising.  There are plenty of studies to back that up.  I have read tons of studies trying to form my own opinion on the matter instead of just spewing forth whatever random crap I heard from someone else.  But you know what I haven't seen?  A study that links the two.  Correlation is not causation.  I have read hundreds of books preaching the horrors of human behavior but not once has any of them shown a link between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature. If we can't decide on CAUSATION then what are we spending TRILLIONS on to fix?  Lets not forget that the temperature of the earth has been fluctuating for MILLIONS of years.  What is the temperature supposed to be?  What's the perfect temperature of the earth?  Climate Alarmists can't answer that one either.  So with no causation and no goal for a solution the only thing we're spending money on is making alarmist "green" activists rich.  

 

Do your own research and stop wasting everyone's time and money.

No, don't do your own research. Listen to the people who know what they're talking about, instead of making your own crappy and unreliable "research" among crackpots on the internet.

 

The rising CO2 levels are pretty easy to link to human activity. You can measure how much oil, coal and natural gas we're burning, and then it's a simple calculation to convert that into amount of CO2. You can also prove the link by measuring carbon isotope ratios, since carbon from fossil fuels have a different isotope ratio (this is related to how carbon dating works).

Edited March 12, 2017 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[techswede]

Sorry to burst your bubble about the sewage plants. I worked with them. And most of the old ones output straight into nature anyway after minor filtration.

 

[stconquest]

On 3/11/2017 at 8:28 AM, Corrupt_Liberty said:

The climate changes.  Nobody disputes that.  What is disputed is the cause.  Scientists have shown that the climate is changing.  I've read plenty of studies that back this up.  Scientists have shown that CO2 levels are rising.  There are plenty of studies to back that up.  I have read tons of studies trying to form my own opinion on the matter instead of just spewing forth whatever random crap I heard from someone else.  But you know what I haven't seen?  A study that links the two.  Correlation is not causation.  I have read hundreds of books preaching the horrors of human behavior but not once has any of them shown a link between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature. If we can't decide on CAUSATION then what are we spending TRILLIONS on to fix?  Lets not forget that the temperature of the earth has been fluctuating for MILLIONS of years.  What is the temperature supposed to be?  What's the perfect temperature of the earth?  Climate Alarmists can't answer that one either.  So with no causation and no goal for a solution the only thing we're spending money on is making alarmist "green" activists rich.  

 

Do your own research and stop wasting everyone's time and money.

We pump more CO2 into the air than the earth can deal with.  This causes a cumulative rise in CO2 density in our atmosphere.  CO2 density traps the heat of the sun in our atmosphere.  The earth gets warmer. 

 

How about we do what you say and continue to limit, and minimize, the amount of CO2 that we throw into the air; then we can measure the difference in temperature in comparison to the decreased CO2 density year after year, decade after decade.  Right now, we get to see the opposite. 

 

Why is the anti-science way the only way to prove a concept?  Should deniers of science/math, or the scientific illiterate, be considered as sources to make an argument? 

 

'Look I just made a snowball, because it is cold outside.  Climate change is a hoax.'  <<Nutters in gov't.  The biggest mistake people make is taking these people seriously.  There is no argument, the debate was done decades ago... between scientists.  We are now seeing what side was right.  Get with the times.

 

I am sure you have no problem with the new funding of the US military to the tune of a $54B add-on... because terrorism, support our troops,

fight for freedom.  <<<I don't know this... I'm tired... that money could have went into the education of US citizens, a real investment.  People called Sanders crazy.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[dalekphalm]

On 3/10/2017 at 11:55 PM, deXxterlab97 said:

1. Water is not holdable therefore you can't throw it

 

Yes, you can hold and throw water.

On 3/11/2017 at 8:28 AM, Corrupt_Liberty said:

The climate changes.  Nobody disputes that.  What is disputed is the cause.  Scientists have shown that the climate is changing.  I've read plenty of studies that back this up.  Scientists have shown that CO2 levels are rising.  There are plenty of studies to back that up.  I have read tons of studies trying to form my own opinion on the matter instead of just spewing forth whatever random crap I heard from someone else.  But you know what I haven't seen?  A study that links the two.  Correlation is not causation.  I have read hundreds of books preaching the horrors of human behavior but not once has any of them shown a link between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature. If we can't decide on CAUSATION then what are we spending TRILLIONS on to fix?  Lets not forget that the temperature of the earth has been fluctuating for MILLIONS of years.  What is the temperature supposed to be?  What's the perfect temperature of the earth?  Climate Alarmists can't answer that one either.  So with no causation and no goal for a solution the only thing we're spending money on is making alarmist "green" activists rich.  

 

Do your own research and stop wasting everyone's time and money.

Yes indeed, temperature fluctuations happen over global history.

 

The problem is not the change, it's the rate of change. Something that would normally happen over the course of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, has happened in around 200 years. There's no time for the ecosystem to properly adapt to the changes.

 

What temperature should it be? I recently watched a video of Bill Nye where he stated that it "should" be around the same climate as the 1700's. Things like growing Wine grade grapes in the UK should not be possible, but are. That might sound "good", but there are plenty of downsides to the change in the climate.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[Corrupt_Liberty]

29 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

No, don't do your own research. Listen to the people who...

...do what they tell you to do instead of thinking for yourself.  Reading and thinking is hard.  Better for others to do that for you.

29 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

 

The rising CO2 levels are pretty easy to link to human activity. You can measure how much oil, coal and natural gas we're burning, and then it's a simple calculation to convert that into amount of CO2. You can also prove the link by measuring carbon isotope ratios, since carbon from fossil fuels have a different isotope ratio (this is related to how carbon dating works).

I wasn't arguing that rising CO2 levels weren't a result of human activity.  Now show me a scientific research paper linking rising CO2 with global warming.  Between 1998 and 2007 the temperature went DOWN, despite a 4 percent increase in carbon dioxide. 

26 minutes ago, stconquest said:

We pump more CO2 into the air than the earth can deal with.  This causes a rise in CO2 density in our atmosphere.  CO2 density traps the heat of the sun in our atmosphere.  The earth gets warmer. 

Right.  And in the 60's CO2 caused global cooling, in the 70's global warming, in the 80's global cooling, in the 90's global warming, in the 2000's....fuck it "climate change".

 

26 minutes ago, stconquest said:

 

How about we do what you say and continue to limit, and minimize, the amount of CO2 that we throw into the air; then we can measure the difference in temperature in comparison to the decreased CO2 density year after year, decade after decade.  Right now, we get to see the opposite. 

Right, lets shutdown industry for your little experiment.  When half the worlds population dies from starvation and disease we can see if the global temperature changes by a degree.

26 minutes ago, stconquest said:

 

Why is the anti-science way the only way to prove a concept?  Should deniers of science/math, or the scientific illiterate, be considered as sources to make an argument? 

Global Warming Theory is just that...a Theory.  Of which there are several.

 

There are those that don't believe in Global Warming at all.  They believe that weather station placement near urban environments  skew the results due to the urban heat island effect.  They also believe that the models used to predict future temperatures are unreliable (not easily dismissed if you ever watch The Weather Channel).  They also have data on their side.  While the northern hemisphere has increased in temperature the southern hemisphere has gone down.  They also find fault in historical data. We've only been measuring weather data since the 1850's and arguably only accurately measuring it for the past 60 years.  

 

There is another group that are skeptics of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming.   I include myself in this group.  There is substantial evidence that CO2 increases are PRECEDED by temperature increases.  The temperature rises causing ice to melt releasing trapped C02 in the glaciers.   We believe that the reports used by government panels on climate change are biased.  They don't include all research only research that supports their agenda.  

 

So who's right?  I don't know for sure. And if you say you do you're either a liar or you're simple.  

 

So what do we do?  People who deny climate change say we do nothing.  People who deny human caused climate change suggest we adapt.  Learn to change with our environment as we have for millennia.  And people like you believe we should what, change the planet's climate?  Good luck with that.  You're sneezing into a snowstorm. 

26 minutes ago, stconquest said:

 

'Look I just made a snowball, because it is cold outside.  Climate change is a hoax.'  <<Nutters in gov't.  The biggest mistake people make is taking these people seriously.  There is no argument, the debate was done decades ago... between scientists.  We are now seeing what side was right.  Get with the times.

Blind following instead of debate is not the solution.  Calling everyone who disagrees with an idiot just makes them want to listen to you less.  

26 minutes ago, stconquest said:

 

I am sure you have no problem with the new funding of the US military to the tune of a $54B add-on... because terrorism, support our troops, fight for freedom.

Please don't insinuate you know anything about me or my beliefs based on a forum post.  Now you're just showing your true ignorance.  But since you brought it up I am not in support of increasing government spending on military. 

[xDylanio]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Yes, you can hold and throw water.

 

My mom always called that ice.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, xDylanio said:

My mom always called that ice.

Yes, and ice is water. So

[dalekphalm]

11 minutes ago, Corrupt_Liberty said:

Global Warming Theory is just that...a Theory.  Of which there are several.

Let me stop you right here. I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is, otherwise you wouldn't use this as an argument:

Quote

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

 

Quote

A body of descriptions of knowledge can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
• It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

So, as you can see, you're using theory as the "layman's term", which basically means "a guess". A scientific theory has absolutely no relation to the layman's term "theory".
 

The way you're using the word, I think you mean to say "hypothesis". But Climate Change isn't just a hypothesis, it's a scientific theory.

[Sakkura]

23 minutes ago, Corrupt_Liberty said:

...do what they tell you to do instead of thinking for yourself.  Reading and thinking is hard.  Better for others to do that for you.

I wasn't arguing that rising CO2 levels weren't a result of human activity.  Now show me a scientific research paper linking rising CO2 with global warming.  Between 1998 and 2007 the temperature went DOWN, despite a 4 percent increase in carbon dioxide.

That is not correct, there was no downward temperature slide or even a hiatus.

 

There are hundreds of research papers linking rising CO2 levels with global warming. Here's just one.

[stconquest]

27 minutes ago, Corrupt_Liberty said:

 

...do what they tell you to do instead of thinking for yourself.  Reading and thinking is hard.  Better for others to do that for you.

 

I wasn't arguing that rising CO2 levels weren't a result of human activity.  Now show me a scientific research paper linking rising CO2 with global warming.  Between 1998 and 2007 the temperature went DOWN, despite a 4 percent increase in carbon dioxide. 

Right.  And in the 60's CO2 caused global cooling, in the 70's global warming, in the 80's global cooling, in the 90's global warming, in the 2000's....fuck it "climate change".

 

Right, lets shutdown industry for your little experiment.  When half the worlds population dies from starvation and disease we can see if the global temperature changes by a degree.

Global Warming Theory is just that...a Theory.  Of which there are several.

 

There are those that don't believe in Global Warming at all.  They believe that weather station placement near urban environments  skew the results due to the urban heat island effect.  They also believe that the models used to predict future temperatures are unreliable (not easily dismissed if you ever watch The Weather Channel).  They also have data on their side.  While the northern hemisphere has increased in temperature the southern hemisphere has gone down.  They also find fault in historical data. We've only been measuring weather data since the 1850's and arguably only accurately measuring it for the past 60 years.  

 

There is another group that are skeptics of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming.   I include myself in this group.  There is substantial evidence that CO2 increases are PRECEDED by temperature increases.  The temperature rises causing ice to melt releasing trapped C02 in the glaciers.   We believe that the reports used by government panels on climate change are biased.  They don't include all research only research that supports their agenda.  

 

So who's right?  I don't know for sure. And if you say you do you're either a liar or you're simple.  

 

So what do we do?  People who deny climate change say we do nothing.  People who deny human caused climate change suggest we adapt.  Learn to change with our environment as we have for millennia.  And people like you believe we should what, change the planet's climate?  Good luck with that.  You're sneezing into a snowstorm. 

Blind following instead of debate is not the solution.  Calling everyone who disagrees with an idiot just makes them want to listen to you less.  

Please don't insinuate you know anything about me or my beliefs based on a forum post.  Now you're just showing your true ignorance.  But since you brought it up I am not in support of increasing government spending on military.

 

How about you stick with believing Louie Gohmert's take on the human effects on the environment, and I will stick to listening to guys like Nye?  I can settle for that.  It is what you are telling me. 

 

If I saw that someone had responded to you, I would not have.  I know it is pointless because I am not willing to put the effort, and your argument does not deserve debate.  Really, it has no place here.  You yourself say that you don't know who's right;  that's a shame.  Why would you take such a stance then?  Why can you not see the value in such findings and be accepting of a migration away from what may very well be harmful to us?  It does not have to be economically destructive.

 

There is an inherent benefit to optimizing how we do things.  Why is it that lead in gasoline is not a thing anymore?  How did non-scientific, or scientifically illiterate, people accept the findings that lead was hazardous when pumped out of a vehicles exhaust?  They did not do the scientific work.  Maybe we can use smoking cigarettes as an example... IDK... what are you missing here?  You claim there is all this money to be made by ecologically conscious-minded entities from this climate change hoax, that alone makes me wonder.  It really sounds like a causation/correlation thingy you reference.

 

As for the military spending part, I struck that out a while ago... well before you posted.  I know that was wrong.

[xDylanio]

25 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Let me stop you right here. I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is, otherwise you wouldn't use this as an argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

 

So, as you can see, you're using theory as the "layman's term", which basically means "a guess". A scientific theory has absolutely no relation to the layman's term "theory".
 

The way you're using the word, I think you mean to say "hypothesis". But Climate Change isn't just a hypothesis, it's a scientific theory.

i was told that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Corrupt_Liberty said:

Quote

No, don't do your own research. Listen to the people who know what they're talking about, instead of making your own crappy and unreliable "research" among crackpots on the internet.

...do what they tell you to do instead of thinking for yourself.  Reading and thinking is hard.  Better for others to do that for you.

Even though you quote what is quite clearly research done by other people - whom's view and theory on things you agree with. Yet, anyone looking at research that opposes your view, is them not thinking for themselves and regurgitating someone else's?

 

Stop talking out your arse hole

[Teddy07]

I give a shit about the environment and regularly throw things on the street. Not my problem

[dalekphalm]

Just now, xDylanio said:

i was told that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information

*sigh* had you bothered to even open the link, you would have clearly and easily (within a matter of 1-2 seconds) seen that the source is provided right there.

 

Here's another source, a University:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

https://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic265890.files/Critical_Thinking_File/07_The_Scientific_Method.pdf

Quote

The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/space-climate-change-and-the-real-meaning-of-theory

https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138

https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-fact

 

Just a few examples.

 

The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it and not post sources. It's a perfectly legitimate source if the claims themselves have proper sources.

[PlayStation 2]

sigh

[yathis]

Once its published in a reputable publication then its trustworthy because its the common consensus among scientists. Believing some scientist (that is paid off and they hide it well) and thinking its an unbiased research is outright wrong. All climate change deniers in my opinion are quacks and those are the ones you got to pay close attention to, because more then likely they are paid off by industry or just plain uninformed quacks. Its very reasonable to say that with the amount of shit humans pollute it definately has an affect on the climate and our enviroment. God only knows whats been dumped into the oceans and air illegally or undocumented.

[spwath]

Whats wrong with throwing water in the trash?