So Mr and Mrs warmer, how many kids do you have? How many more acres of land to clear and farm to feed them I wonder? How many trees to cut and mill and transport on trucks to house them do you think? How many more cars on the road in your family these days? I could go on all day but I'll refrain.
Are you asking people who believe climate change science? If so, I have zero children and want zero children. If something changes and I suddenly want to be a mother, I would adopt.
Good for you, I respect your choice and you are extremely rare as the lack of response to this thread proves.
In my experience they rarely have children. I think it's kind of sad that they've been duped into committing a form of suicide, but then for many of them the social feelings probably came first and the justification second.
In my experience they all have children and then say we must stop global warming "for the children". The irony is so thick you could dig it with a shovel
At least they have some skin in the game. The ones I have been familiar with all embrace social liberalism and climate change after they decide that it justifies a certain lifestyle but don't want to admit it.
Was there any sensible point to this thread? Best I can tell, it's an unsuccessful attempt by deniers to convince themselves that their tiny fringe cult isn't going extinct, for the same reason that the flat earther cult went extinct.
So you have no answer to the questions posed in the OP and chose to attempt denigration instead. The obvious point is if you believe in AGW and then have two children which effectively doubles your carbon footprint as you lament global warming you just may have a screw or two loose. I'm just curious how you rationalize this and so far no answers which is very telling. Obviously you have no answer except you want kids so screw global warming, you will do as you please in your life.
A fringe part of the global warming alarmists is the Malthusians who believe that there are literally too many humans existing on this planet. I've seen a couple of BookTV discussions of books supportive of the global warming "threat to humanity" and the Malthusian theme has come up in the Q&A session after the author's talk about their book. In both cases the authors looked uncomfortable with the questions and implications but this element represented by the questioner and a few others in the audience was clearly in play. IMO this plays in part to the difference in the parties in which the D's view increasing population as a liability (greater strain on the welfare system and environment) but the R's view increasing population as a positive (more wealth creation to pay for the social safety net and develop technological solutions).
What is your definition of an AGW "denier" in terms of the number of deg Centigrade warming per century ?? In other words what rate of warming threshold is the determining factor, i.e. if one believes in a rate below your threshold they are labelled a "denier." For example if a person believed in a rate of global warming less than 1.5 deg C per century would that person be labelled a "denier" ??
A "denier" is anyone and everyone that breaks lockstep with the AGW cult and dares question it's dogma in any way shape or form.
You mean asking for actual numbers ?? Actually analyzing what is going on based on real world data and daring to publish results that go against preconceptions earns the title "denier". Roger Peilke Jr. who was a prolific writer and analyst of the global warming situation and does believe in some amount of AGW was basically driven out of the subject (his personal decision). This is what happens to serious and competent scientists who question the dogma. Source - second post down in the link below: https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/ Also for much more detail read "The Rightful Place Of Science - Disasters and Climate Change" - Roger Pielke Jr. - 2014
Yes when you break lockstep you are excoriated, excommunicated, ostracized, shamed, accused, ridiculed and drummed out. You are made an example of for others who may dare question.
Looks like the victimhood tantrums and conspiracy theories are all deniers have left. This thread does illustrate one unpleasant facet of denier personalities. They're wishing death on liberals again, the whole "if you liberals care so much, why don't you exterminate yourselves!" thing that they do so often. Deniers tend to be a very violent and unstable crowd. Of course, they need to think it through, as their logic is badly flawed. If, as deniers say, violence is acceptable to save the earth, then that denier logic would dictate that the worst planet-rapists get offed first. That is, denier logic says deniers need to go first.
I'll try again to get an answer: What is your definition of an AGW "denier" in terms of the number of deg Centigrade warming per century ?? In other words what rate of warming threshold is the determining factor, i.e. if one believes in a rate below your threshold they are labelled a "denier." For example if a person believed in a rate of global warming less than 1.5 deg C per century would that person be labelled a "denier" ?? What is "violent" about asking this series of questions ??
A very unstable post that seems to be unable to grasp the concept of more people equals more CO2 in the atmosphere. Talk about denial.
Deniers are people that do not believe that AGW is a serious threat and action must be taken. They are deniers because they deny the evidence of every national science academy in the world. For them it's about politics and money .......not science
well it does become tiresome to address you all over an over again with the same questions to which you have no answers. So, in an effort to help you all out since you can not produce the evidence to support your claims, nor offer up any solutions, other alternatives would provide some ideas for you all. Still curious ole tooth, how warm is 120 PPM of CO2? If there is less LWR, does it get warmer or cooler?
"Deniers" are those that require quantification of the threat and the economic cost/benefit of recommended actions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-climate-change-campaigner-dies-snorkeling-great-barrier-083744924.html Earth strikes back... at foolish arrogant man.
Given from what - the Stern report which uses grossly exaggerated costs of warming, a ridiculously low discount rate, and instantaneous damages from temperature changes ?? It's amazing that paper continues to be used to form global public policy. Or is the source the alarmist videos that permeate the arena showing hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, glaciers melting, .... https://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/...or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/ What I want is a model that agrees with past temperature history. There are none. How then can models be used to form public policy.
