What is the benefit to being a climate change denier...

How hot would the earth be were there no sun?

>It seems to me the options are A,
>global warming is real and we're all fucked if we keep using fossil fuels, B,
>global warming is false but eventually fossil fuels will run out and we'll all be fucked, or C whether global warming is real or not it's in our best interest to start converting to non-fossil fuel based energy.
There are many more possibilities. Maybe you should take a logic class before you make fun of others for being dumb. You are no better.

Why do alarmists always use the "denier" label when most people are skeptics?

>What is the benefit to being a climate change denier?

By pretending you're not a part of the problem. Honestly it's a miracle water regulation even managed to get pass and stayed in places like America.

>Why do creationists get called deniers for being skeptical of evolution?
Because they have no rational arguments and are merely trying to preserve a preconceived ideology.

>AGW deniers are like creationists
That's not a fair comparison, at least creationists have an alternative explanation.

>>Why do creationists get called deniers for being skeptical of evolution?
Who are you quoting?

Alternative explaination without evidence for the said explaination. Also it doesn't help that you have other creationists cultures that do accept evolution because their religion didn't put a fixed date on human existence.

>Not even giving any counterexample
Brainlet

Amazing retort, truly you are a prime example of the intellectual skeptic.

>Amazing retort, truly you are a prime example of the intellectual skeptic.
All you did was present a false analogy. Did you have anything relevant to say?

Actually I answered your question, moron.

No, you misquoted me and answered a question that you made up. Do you have anything relevant to say?

So first you pretended that I was quoted you, then you said I was making an analogy, and now you went back to pretending to be retarded. Which is it retard?

And yes, I did answer your question.

Do you have anything relevant to say or are you just going to continue pretending to be retarded?

>So first you pretended that I was quoted you
Actually no, that's why I asked who you were quoting.

>then you said I was making an analogy
You did, see .

>And yes, I did answer your question.
Where?

Do you have anything relevant to say?

>Actually no, that's why I asked who you were quoting.
So now you are pretending that wasn't a rhetorical question?

Why do you have to lie?

>Where?
See

>So now you are pretending that wasn't a rhetorical question?
Irregardless of what kind of question it was, I'm not sure why you attributed it to me.

>See
You answered a different question in that post.

Do you have anything relevant to say?

anthroprogenic warming isn't causing the weather to change

What's stopping it?

>Irregardless

I would support action to mitigate agw. I think it's a crock of shit, but I would support it.

Problem is that there are no solutions which can be implemented immediately that would significantly impact agw as proposed.

Paris agreement doesn't guarantee anything. And even if the US stopped all emissions (which isn't possible) it still wouldn't be enough.

So I don't understand why you cry so much about it when you should know just as well as anyone else that coping is the only way.

>Irregardless of what kind of question it was, I'm not sure why you attributed it to me.
That's not the question I was referring to. If you can't follow a basic line of conversation, stop posting.

>You answered a different question in that post.
No, I answered the same question. Either respond or fuck off. Any more of this pointless nonsense will be ignored.

>Problem is that there are no solutions which can be implemented immediately that would significantly impact agw as proposed.
Just institute an optimal carbon tax and you're done.

>That's not the question I was referring to.
Then you must be referring to my own question, which was of course not rhetorical.

>No, I answered the same question.
What "preconceived ideology" do skeptics have?

>Either respond or fuck off.
Do you need to swear?

>Any more of this pointless nonsense will be ignored.
Do you have anything relevant to say?

>optimal carbon tax
Non-solution.

How is it not a solution? It prevents billions of dollars worth of damage.

>What "preconceived ideology" do skeptics have?
Skeptics don't have a preconceived ideology. AGW deniers on the other hand are mostly right-wing and are afraid of government intervention being necessary.

>Skeptics don't have a preconceived ideology.
Which is why your "answer" had nothing to do with my question.

Do you have anything relevant to say?

>Charge industry for emitting pollution won't reduce emissions
How is a CO2 different to any other pollutant?

The fact that your question is based on a false premise does not somehow mean that I didn't answer it. Once again you prove yourself utterly incapable of making a logical argument.

>The fact that your question is based on a false premise does not somehow mean that I didn't answer it.
What false premise?

You didn't answer it because you explicitly answered a different question in your post, one which you misattributed to me despite never saying it.

>The fact that your question is based on a false premise does not somehow mean that I didn't answer it. Once again you prove yourself utterly incapable of making a logical argument.
You don't seem very well versed in logic. A false premise doesn't have any affect on the validity of a logical argument.

Next?

>What false premise?
>most people are skeptics

>You didn't answer it because you explicitly answered a different question in your post
I answered both questions. Once again, you fail at basic logic.

>one which you misattributed to me despite never saying it.
Again why are you lying? Answer the question this time.

This whole "I'm too retarded to understand, spoonfeed me" shtick is getting old.

>>most people are skeptics
Why is that a false premise?

>I answered both questions.
As you said here , "Skeptics don't have a preconceived ideology", and so your "answer" had nothing to do with my question.

>You don't seem very well versed in logic. A false premise doesn't have any affect on the validity of a logical argument.
You don't seem very good at reading. I didn't say anything about an argument being invalid, I said that your question's false premise has no bearing on whether I answered the question.

>Again why are you lying?
About what? I never said stated the question you misattributed to me (feel free to point out where I allegedly did say such nonsense).

>As you said here (You), "Skeptics don't have a preconceived ideology", and so your "answer" had nothing to do with my question.
See

>About what?
About me mis-attributing a quote to you. Stop pretending to be retarded and stop lying. If you do it again you are admitting that you can't argue honestly, at which point you lose the argument.

>See
What does your answer have to do with skeptics if you're not talking about skeptics?

>About me mis-attributing a quote to you.
You did, see .

My answer has to do with your question, which is about people who deny AGW, not skeptics. Now fuck off.

>My answer has to do with your question
Why are you lying?

>fuck off.
Do you need to swear?

Thanks for admitting you can't argue honestly. You lose. Don't bother replying, your posts will be hidden.

>Thanks for admitting you can't argue honestly.
Where did I admit that? Did you just misattribute another misquote to me?

First off no one is denying climate change. The climate is and has always been changing. Informed people are denying that climate change is is entirely man-made and that it is catastrophic. PS the largest contributor to greenhouse gases is animal husbandry not fossil fuels.

The benefit to not buying into the global warming bullshit is that:
A avoid paying extra tax into a global slush fund of unaccountable organizations.

B jobs so that people can feed their families

C not being an easily manipulated populace willing to conform to the next propaganda campaign.

D keep funding from useless NGO's so they can professionally protests in the street and waste resources.

E have the peace of mind that the sky isn't falling so you can get on with being productive.

Don't know about being a denier, but not giving a shit has some good benefits

>Informed people are denying that climate change is is entirely man-made and that it is catastrophic.
All of the evidence we have points to those "informed" people being dead wrong.

>PS the largest contributor to greenhouse gases is animal husbandry not fossil fuels.
Source or STFU

>A avoid paying extra tax into a global slush fund of unaccountable organizations.
What global slush fund?

>B jobs so that people can feed their families
Climate change itself is going to fuck up agriculture and industry more than avoiding climate change ever could

>C not being an easily manipulated populace willing to conform to the next propaganda campaign.
????????????????

>D keep funding from useless NGO's so they can professionally protests in the street and waste resources.
Which NGOs? Be specific.

>E have the peace of mind that the sky isn't falling so you can get on with being productive.
>Denying reality is valuable because reality makes me unhappy!

>Informed people are denying that climate change is is entirely man-made
If they were informed they would know it is.

>and that it is catastrophic
This is just a vague strawman. The consequences are what the scientists say they will be.

>PS the largest contributor to greenhouse gases is animal husbandry not fossil fuels.
Wrong, see pic. So much for you being "informed."

>If they were informed they would know it is.
[citation needed]

>the largest contributor to greenhouse gases is animal husbandry not fossil fuels

Are you going to pretend that the increase industrialization of animal husbandry is not inherently tied to fossil fuels due to growing dependency of it since it's introduction?

>Informed people are denying that climate change is is entirely man-made and that it is catastrophic

Really now? So are we also going to pretend that Oklahoma Dust Bowl wasn't a catastrophic event that occurred due to specifically the practices of man-made agriculture that exacerbated environmental conditions badly to the point that Dust Storms killed thousands and ruined the lives of hundred thousands of people forcing migration to neighboring states?

Do Americans have bad memory? Did they forget that the government had to get involved and practice geo-engineering to fucking fix the issue along with teaching people how to properly farm without causing conditions that would be catastrophic again?

>[citation needed]
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Cuck cuck cuck.

>fossil fuels are a finite resource
that is patently false. synthetic hydrocarbons are a thing. pajeets are powering gas turbines with poop gas as we speak.

>fossil fuels are a finite resource.
What are some good infinite resources?

>Informed people are denying that climate change is is entirely man-made and that it is catastrophic.

Who are these informed people?

>PS the largest contributor to greenhouse gases is animal husbandry not fossil fuels.

Not even close. Power stations and Industrial processes are first and second.

>A avoid paying extra tax into a global slush fund of unaccountable organizations.

Where is your proof of this?

>B jobs so that people can feed their families

We're making more than enough food today, and that's because of increased industrialization and improved fertilization. You aren't going to find more jobs now, and efforts to curb climate change aren't killing jobs. Let alone consider the consequences of AGW that will severely hinder food and jobs far more than any policy.

>C not being an easily manipulated populace willing to conform to the next propaganda campaign.

So if it's something you disagree with, it's propaganda? We're talking science here, not ideology, and so far you've produced nothing correct.

>D keep funding from useless NGO's so they can professionally protests in the street and waste resources.

Once again because you dislike it, it has to be "useless", and it would only be useless if AGW was proven wrong, which it hasn't

>E have the peace of mind that the sky isn't falling so you can get on with being productive.

If there was a catastrophe that was stoppable or mitigated, would you just stand by and say, "Well, it was bound to happen anyways, not going to let my life be wasted on inevitables and chicken little fears." You seem to think it is literally zero sum game and that people can't work towards a solution and have the threat looming.

nobody wants to actually stop climate change. organizations are just asking for more taxes and handouts for """""research""""". there are several viable geo engineering projects that could reverse or severely mitigate climate change. the same people who shout to the hills about climate change are the same people who wring their hands and say "w-w-well not so fast" when someone suggests something like atmospheric aerosols or global carbon sequestration projects. their reasoning? they don't know what it would do. if they don't know how an applied solution would turn out, then they don't have a firm grasp on the problem.

Consensus by climate scientists is that even if the entire world stopped all emissions today, that it would still pass the projected 1.4? Degree inctease.

Here's how carbon taxes work:
Company a buys offset from company b.
Company b buys offset from company c.
Company c buys offset from company a.
And money and credits is shifted without any actual decrease in omissions.

I understand that taxes are different from credits, but it's the same thing, except the government gets the money, which is in turn sent back to companies and pork.

...

>The benefit is clearly to preserve a right-wing ideology in which positive, non-military government intervention is forbidden.
This is not a right-wing ideology at all.

its left wing ideology that is stone walling virtually all renewable energy.

>Consensus by climate scientists is that even if the entire world stopped all emissions today, that it would still pass the projected 1.4? Degree inctease.
So? An optimal carbon tax would prevent billions of dollars worth of damage from occurring. I don't see how 1.4 degrees of assured warming is an argument to not save money by mitigating non-assured warming. Where is the logic behind your post? Do you just write whatever random thoughts pop into your head? Is there anything going on in there?

>Company a buys offset from company b.
Do you know what a carbon tax is? It's not a cap, so offsets have nothing to do with it.

Can someone please tell me why these retards come into every climate thread pretending to know what they're talking about while posting a bunch of obvious nonsense, and then inevitably slink away once their bullshit is called out, only to post the exact same thing in the next thread? Do they have no shame? Do they have no intellectual integrity? Are they mentally ill?

Yes, everyone knows the right-wing is storming Congress demanding climate change legislation.

>if you don't want climate change legislation you must hate all government action on everything
liberalism is a mental disease

>You don't want climate change legislation because you're against government regulation
How exactly is this fact controversial?

nice backpedal

>>The benefit is clearly to preserve a right-wing ideology in which positive, non-military government intervention is forbidden.
>if you don't want climate change legislation you must hate all government action on everything
Nice misrepresentation.

yes, you are misrepresenting right wing thought, that's the point

So the right wing supports regulation like climate change mitigation? Or it seeks to minimize government regulation? I'm so confused.

I'm not a denier but when my highly corrupt government (I'm not American) tells me that the greatest way to prevent climate change is to STEAL OUR TAX DOLLARS, and literally give them away to some shady market scheme run by even shadier speculators/bankers, collecting huge management fees, which in turn gives my money to some despotic dictator in Asia or Middle East in exchange for """credits""" that polluting companies here are merely abstracting away in order to remain polluters I am very, very suspicious of so-called solutions to climate change. It screams scam, especially because money and credits are being thrown around.

If my regime wants to dump money into renewable energy research, (and it's not a front for some scam to pay millions in kickbacks to campaign donators) then sure I'm all for that. But even that is never done transparently. Our problem isn't climate change, it's thieving politicians.

Yes, you are.

Which one is it though?

the right wing heavily supports alternative energy sources and actual mitigation plans. the left wing just wants to wring their hands, collect taxes/handouts, and do """"""research"""""". its not the right who is protesting hydroelectric dams and nuclear power.

Let's not forget the awesome tax subsidies for solar panels, which is a transfer from landless to landed. Because that's how we save the planet, tax renters and give it to the landlords. Thanks, hippies!

B

Once we run out of easy energy, we won't be able to support agriculture and A LOT of people are going to starve to death.

skeptic:
>hmm, we should reconsider long-held views and other "conventional wisdom". here's some preliminary evidence suggesting that it's wrong.
denier:
>this "conventional wisdom" is wrong because I said so. all the evidence supporting it must be faked.

That's right. They have no intention of leaving any of the known reserves.

>the right wing heavily supports alternative energy sources and actual mitigation plans
Such as?

Only about 30% of Republicans even believe manmade global warming is real, so how can they "heavily support" mitigating a problem they don't even believe exists?

>RIGHT WING GOOD
>LEFT WING REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Wow, what a cogent, well-evidenced argument.

>its not the right who is protesting hydroelectric dams and nuclear power.
What percentage of the left wing is protesting hydroelectric dams and nuclear power?

They - more than anyone else in society - depend on "economic growth" to support their bloated lifestyles, so the only options on the table are the ones that don't affect "economic growth", which is the cause of all of our problems.

You get to make libruls mad

the right wing has been pushing for further subsidies of the fucking COAL INDUSTRY, which is in decline not because of any environmental movement but because of the shale gas boom. oh, and they're also the ones trying to literally ban public safety agencies from considering the effects of climate change or sea level rise when planning out natural hazards mitigation.
please stop making shit up.

>economists examine data and see that inflation and employment are positively correlated
>hey let's just induce inflation!
>whoooooops...

>economists examine data and see that people with college education make more money
>hey let's just give everyone college loans!
>whoooooooops

>economists examine models and see that there will be costs associated with climate change
>hey let's just...
can't wait to see how fucking retards mess up the world again and blame it on anyone but their own meddling selves

>CAN'T NO NUFFIN
>CAN'T NO NUFFIN
>CAN'T NO NUFFIN
>CAN'T NO NUFFIN

economics is a science.

broken window fallacy is very sciency.

>try to capitalize on the vastly underutilized hydro electric systems in the US
>MUH FISH

>try to expand windfarms
>MUH BIRDS

>nuclear
>REE MILE ISLAND AND MUH CHURNOBUL

yeah man, its really right wingers stopping progress.

what you mean by progress is more and more consumption by more and more people, right?