jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (23 posts)

Is the concept of Climate Change a scam?

  1. profile image0
    LoliHeyposted 24 months ago

    Is the concept of Climate Change a scam?

    If so, why would the elite want us to think the world is warming?

  2. manatita44 profile image83
    manatita44posted 24 months ago

    Life is evolutionary. Atlantis has disappeared and many separate landmarks were originally joined together. Scientists know this. Things change and so do climate and the environment.

    Some say that the ecological problem is all down to greed, separativity ... but others hold the viewpoint that some change will gradually happen, but we push it a bit faster, yes. Hope this helps.

  3. Michaela Osiecki profile image78
    Michaela Osieckiposted 24 months ago

    It's the elite and corporations that want us to think global warming is a hoax - most of them surely know that their business practices are environmentally harmful and are leaving strong scars on the earth, but it's too expensive for them to change their practices and none of these greedy f*cks wants to take a pay cut.

    1. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      There is evidence that supports the opposite.  Scientists who can prove that Global Warming is wrong are fired and discarded from the Elite, so that the hoax can be kept alive.  That way they can make money.

    2. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      And you would rather believe the nonsense hoax that is put up as religion, Lolita?  There are "scientists" employed by some big companies, and they tell lies.  But many more people study science who are honest, and seek facts, not superstition.

    3. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Put religion aside for a moment, because this question is about Climate Change. How do you know that Climate Change supporter-scientists are not lying?  Who is right? Who is wrong?

    4. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Answer: I don't "know," for sure, neither do you.  I included religion in this conversation because it obviously drives your point of view, going by the only hub, so far, in your profile.
      Do you ever question the people who deny science? Why/Why not?

  4. jonnycomelately profile image83
    jonnycomelatelyposted 24 months ago

    So, Lolita, you would prefer to "believe" all manner of stories and ideas gleaned from your religious background, rather than give credit to the enormous amount of study and scientific investigation that has been carried out?
    To disregard the results of such studies which have been carried out by conscientious, mid-night-oil-burning individuals, is I feel insulting.
    You might choose not to "believe" what answers they come up with.  You are free to hold religious views of your own.  But to discard scientific claims without having any scholastic background yourself, is to put your own meager knowledge up above others in importance....and thus arrogant, don't you think?

    1. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Well, I apologise for the term arrogant.... more to suggest faith and scientific study can both be valid, we don't all have to see things only one way...and I do respect people's desire to "believe" without proof, even though that does not suit me.

    2. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      It's got nothing to do with religion.  People have claimed that CO2 levels were actually higher in the dinosaur age, but those facts are swept under the rug.  In fact, the ice caps have totally melted before and this is normal.  It is not our fault.

    3. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      You have been hooked by the publicity from those companies who want you to be confused.  And you only read those, because you don't want to think for yourself.

    4. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Not true.  I have seen both sides of the evidence.

    5. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Ok, let's hear your understanding of the "other" side...the side that has investigated, painstakingly and over many years, the data of numerous climate indicators.  Realisticly, honestly and open to negative findings as well as positive.

    6. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Perhaps I will write a hub on it when I can sit down and devote a lot of time to it.

  5. chef-de-jour profile image97
    chef-de-jourposted 24 months ago

    To answer this question fully and still not arrive at a credible result would take a hundred scientists, a hundred experts and a hundred environmentalists a hundred years. And then a hundred politicians would have to be convinced, one way or the other.


    I'm being slightly tongue in cheek because in my humble opinion there is no answer to this question. Even the so called experts in their field are torn. There is only evidence and that can be stretched a hundred different ways.

    The crux for me is -
    * if global warming is happening we should act to cut down emissions and change the paradigms we use for industrial progress.

    * if global warming isn't happening we should act to cut down emissions and change the paradigms we use for industrial progress.

    We've managed to debunk the concept of a flat earth through science and logic and exploration. Global warming is a bit more complex but I suspect that, in a few hundred years time, people will look back on us and declare that we were mad/crazy/blind/ to admit that our planet was warming up and that we were the cause. Self-denial?

    1. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      I agree with that last sentence.  I think that if the elite can convince us that Climate Change is happening, they can tax us to "stop it," and get rich while we pay.

    2. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      By that time they will know we were mad/crazy/blind because we took from the world what they would love to have had:  clean air, diversity of creatures and plants, clean water, abundant fuel, undamaged soil.  And they will still be cleaning up.

  6. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 24 months ago

    Yes, and we know that when they renamed global warming to climate change because it stopped warming in 2000.
    It gets worse with the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia conspiring to suppress papers that disagreed with them, NOAA altering data to fit the models instead of admitting the models are wrong, head of the Weather Channel losing his job for pointing out CO2 rose in the 1900-1970 period while temperature varied.
    They are promoting population control, energy poverty, socialism for climate change as a solution as they did for 1970s global cooling scares. The solution is always socialism, and that's why they promote it.

    1. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Good answer.  So many people are duped into believing it.  The Socialists make a very convincing case for it.

    2. enjoy life profile image78
      enjoy lifeposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Renaming is not proof that nothing is happening. The fact is science has known something drastic is going wrong and trying to understand it. To deny humans have seriously affected the natural order of the planet is simply ignorant

    3. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Being "duped into believing it" is obviously not confined to socialists. 
      "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

  7. Electro-Denizen profile image83
    Electro-Denizenposted 23 months ago

    I think it probably goes a bit like this. The planet goes through periodic times of change and upheaval, and humans, as part of the Earth, are intrinsically part of that change. From that perspective, it becomes a bit semantic as to whether we are causing the change, or whether we are part of the change... whichever, the world is warming.

    Some groups benefit from introducing rules and regulations to get a tighter grip (i.e. we are causing global warming and we must stop it), while others benefit from us continuing to burn fossil fuels and eat plenty of meat (both the biggest contributors to environmental stress), because they make loads of money from it. These groups hate the idea that we're causing global warming and don't want to stop their activities. Different groups, different motivations, even conflicting motivations within the same organizations...

    It's not a simple picture. I suppose a bit like how simple political arguments can often take hold (i.e. the dumb argument shouts loudest and is easy to digest and even stupid people get it), the climate change debate has been confused by over-simplified ideas from either side.

    Setting aside all of that, it's worth going back to basics and looking at what individual scientists, on the ground, have discovered. It's no wonder everyone wants to think global warming perhaps isn't even happening as the chaos will be extensive. 90% of creatures that ever existed in Earth's long history, are extinct... Happy Days :-)

  8. enjoy life profile image78
    enjoy lifeposted 13 months ago

    It's not the elite wanting us to believe in man made climate change. The elite and political systems of the world have resisted listening to the science on climate change for many years. There's is more financial benefit to the elite to deny climate change than to admit it.

    One thing is a fact: the climate is changing. The question people have is whether this is just part of a natural cycle or whether humans are causing / speeding it up.

    Consider this: if there is even the slightest potential that we are causing / speeding up changes, then we need to act. We don't have a hundred years to debate the issue. If we fail to act now, by the time people agree whether we are causing it, it could be too late. There simply is not time left for us to take decades to debate the issue. Extinction is occurring at around 1000 times the normally rate right now. Species are going extinct or becoming highly endagered at a higher rate now than ever before. Bees and butterflies, who are essential for many thing, are disappearing fast. We can sit and debate for decades about whether humans are causing / affecting this and in that time lose it all, lose a lot of very beautiful wildlife, plants etc.

    Or, we can be honest, face the fact that we either are definitely causing it or we 'may' be causing it. But either way, we need to change what we are doing. If there is even the slightest possibility that it is us causing it, we need to do something and do it now. Those who are uncertain and think that 'maybe' we are causing it, don't have time to debate any longer. 

    If we are not causing it, then we will benefit hugely from the scientific discover that comes out of developing better fuels, food systems etc. In the long run, if we are not behind climate change, then this can be a period of discovery and scientific advance that will benefit our children and future generations.

    - Deny it and do nothing is simply foolish, when there is so much that says it is us.
    - Admit it is definite and do something is a good idea
    - Be uncertain about whether it is us but say that 'if it is' we need to do something is a good idea.
    - be uncertain about whether it is us and think that until we are sure, we should do nothing and simply steam ahead with things that could be causing damage is simply foolish.

 
working