Why do people get so angry about climate change?
We are literally destroying this planet and when someone speaks out about it some people seem to get so angry.
For example if you go on Greta Thunberg's Twitter the comments are filled with people furiously denying climate change / pollution. I don't get why so many people deny it and why they get so angry about it?
For example if you go on Greta Thunberg's Twitter the comments are filled with people furiously denying climate change / pollution. I don't get why so many people deny it and why they get so angry about it?
Scroll to see replies
I’d say some of it’s because of the disruptive protests like the Canning Town tube one where it frustrated people because they just wanted to get to work ect...
(edited 4 years ago)
People hate Greta Thunberg largely because she's extremely irritating and a pawn for her parents. She says nothing new or insightful, and she herself injects anger into the debate! Deserves recognition for her courage to speak out as a young person but not really much more because she hasn't really offered anything, but has been successful in starting unhelpful bickering.
Climate change deniers don't have a leg to stand on anymore. There was argument, back when research was lacking, that the implications were greatly overexaggerated and it was just sensationalism. But research has now shown that this is not the case so there is no real legitimate reason to believe it. Largely just uneducated people. Will soon fall in the same pool as flat earthers.
Climate change deniers don't have a leg to stand on anymore. There was argument, back when research was lacking, that the implications were greatly overexaggerated and it was just sensationalism. But research has now shown that this is not the case so there is no real legitimate reason to believe it. Largely just uneducated people. Will soon fall in the same pool as flat earthers.
People don't like to be told that the way they live their lives is harmful and that they need to take personal responsibility to change their behaviour.
can't really be bothered, commonly accepted definitions can probably be found here.
Having seen Trump elected, Brexit, Boris Johnson's election and now Putin ceasing total power in what was briefly an open democracy, I can't help but feel the truth no longer counts. Power is taken by those who seed doubt and fear blaming others for that fear and doubt.
I predict that whole countries will be on fire with major cities submerged in water and people will still be denying climate change.
Only a shift in tactics from the truth sayers can change things. Simply pointing out the facts is sadly not enough.
I predict that whole countries will be on fire with major cities submerged in water and people will still be denying climate change.
Only a shift in tactics from the truth sayers can change things. Simply pointing out the facts is sadly not enough.
Could you please disprove the latest scientific review.
Who should I believe? Scientists who do this for a living or an armchair protagonist who calls themselves Monkey Nuts.
Are you telling me that last year wasn't the warmest ever? Have you not noticed that temps haven't dipped much below 6 so far this winter? Something that didn't really happen 30 years ago.
Who should I believe? Scientists who do this for a living or an armchair protagonist who calls themselves Monkey Nuts.
Are you telling me that last year wasn't the warmest ever? Have you not noticed that temps haven't dipped much below 6 so far this winter? Something that didn't really happen 30 years ago.
It's because plenty of educated people including university professors disagree and have science to the contrary. People that shout loudest are often wrong.
Personally, I'm still on the fence about the world heating up - especially due to human reasons. Not so long ago there was a science focus on the world cooling.
However, absolutely we should treat the planet right and stop polluting it, stop deforestation, protect all species, treat animals fairly especially when considering them for food, farm ethically, and leave the planet in a better position for each generation to come.
Personally, I'm still on the fence about the world heating up - especially due to human reasons. Not so long ago there was a science focus on the world cooling.
However, absolutely we should treat the planet right and stop polluting it, stop deforestation, protect all species, treat animals fairly especially when considering them for food, farm ethically, and leave the planet in a better position for each generation to come.
Ah fab. So you finally conceed that the world is warming up and is caused by man. Hurrah!
But you seem to dismiss 0.7 degrees. Well I will tell you what 0.7 degrees means to me. It means spring arrives about 2-4 weeks earlier than it did. It means we now have wetter summers than we did and it means we have milder winters. As a gardener and someone who doesn't like midges, this is a real concern to me. Last year, I was bitten by a mudge in December! Totally unheard of.
And last year was the hotest on record across the world.
Could you please explain to me why this graph is a complete fabrication and why I should not be worried?
But you seem to dismiss 0.7 degrees. Well I will tell you what 0.7 degrees means to me. It means spring arrives about 2-4 weeks earlier than it did. It means we now have wetter summers than we did and it means we have milder winters. As a gardener and someone who doesn't like midges, this is a real concern to me. Last year, I was bitten by a mudge in December! Totally unheard of.
And last year was the hotest on record across the world.
Could you please explain to me why this graph is a complete fabrication and why I should not be worried?
(edited 4 years ago)
One key issue is because those that are protesting about it themselves are doing nothing. Their tactics are failing and it's all a bunch of younger millennials out there protesting it because they have nothing better to do. These people complain daily about it but at the moment Australia is on fire and they don't even donate to Australia or consider going over there to help. I also find it hypocritical that celebrities and activists like Greta aren't doing anything in Australia. Leonardo Dicaprio loves spreading awareness on the matter but he isn't in Australia helping is he? All those liberal people in America keep spreading hatred on their nationality and protest about climate change but they aren't doing anything to help but their own nation they hate so much actually is doing something.
They have all this money but they don't do anything, they have no backbone, they're just like a modern politician. They generate more income in the nonsense they spew without helping the people who are impacted the most by the world's issues. That's how it has always been and those protesting are just as worse because they probably damage the environment one way or the other and are just there for publicity. MLK JR didn't stand around doing nothing when his people were being oppressed in America, so why can't these people, if they are so concerned, do something about their issue rather than acting like a manchild in public? ever notice how many Uni students "love going travelling" and go posting about it all the time on their social media? why aren't they considering going to Australia?
As Cao Mengde said, "Without an army, what is the good use of a scholar's pen?"
They have all this money but they don't do anything, they have no backbone, they're just like a modern politician. They generate more income in the nonsense they spew without helping the people who are impacted the most by the world's issues. That's how it has always been and those protesting are just as worse because they probably damage the environment one way or the other and are just there for publicity. MLK JR didn't stand around doing nothing when his people were being oppressed in America, so why can't these people, if they are so concerned, do something about their issue rather than acting like a manchild in public? ever notice how many Uni students "love going travelling" and go posting about it all the time on their social media? why aren't they considering going to Australia?
As Cao Mengde said, "Without an army, what is the good use of a scholar's pen?"
(edited 4 years ago)
Spoiler
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Kuola1
We are literally destroying this planet and when someone speaks out about it some people seem to get so angry.
For example if you go on Greta Thunberg's Twitter the comments are filled with people furiously denying climate change / pollution. I don't get why so many people deny it and why they get so angry about it?
For example if you go on Greta Thunberg's Twitter the comments are filled with people furiously denying climate change / pollution. I don't get why so many people deny it and why they get so angry about it?
I think people get angry because the protesters tend to target the wrong people. There are many people who have changed or are changing their lifestyles due to their impact on the environment. Yet, their lives get disrupted because a group of hippies with nothing more important to do decide to cause chaos. If the protesters target the powerful and government officials, then many people, I think, would understand. Instead, they go after the average Joe and Sally and make their lives more difficult.
For example, the extinction rebellion London protests caused untold misery for millions of people trying to get to work to feed their families. I heard that one protester had told a group of workers to take time off during the period of protests.
I would not be surprised that some of these people would be guilty of doing many stupid things like flying everywhere, having multiple smartphones and contributing to the environment impact.
As i said previously, the public must take matters into their hands and not wait for the weak police force. Grab one or two of them and send them straight to A&E. Next step they go straight to Downing Street rather than disrupting the lives of millions of people.
(edited 4 years ago)
Happy? No. Not really. You are clutching at straws. So a server was hacked in 2009 by a climate sceptic. Have you read these emails or are you just taking the word of those who read it?
1930s. Fine. So if in a few years time we are back to averages you will be right. But what if we aren't?
But like I say. No amount of truth or facts will sway your view so there is no point in me trying. Why is spring so much earlier than it was 20 years ago or is that just my imagination?
1930s. Fine. So if in a few years time we are back to averages you will be right. But what if we aren't?
But like I say. No amount of truth or facts will sway your view so there is no point in me trying. Why is spring so much earlier than it was 20 years ago or is that just my imagination?
So why is Austrailia burning? Why did we have the warmest year since records began last year? Why is spring 2 weeks earlier than 20 years ago? Why are there midges in December? Why are European species now found in Southern England? Why is tge Great Barrier reef bleaching? Why is the permafrist in Siberia melting?
Presumably all independent coincidences?
Presumably all independent coincidences?
No idea. But by jove, my glass porch gets very hot when the sun shines. I am genuinely concerned for my kids future. Are you saying I shouldn't be concerned at what humans are doing to the earth?
Even if it is my imagination that the world is heating up, pollution and loss of habitat are easy to see.
Even if it is my imagination that the world is heating up, pollution and loss of habitat are easy to see.
Alright, cool cool.
So do you accept that the scientific consensus is that our current CO2 output is significant, and is indeed accelerating effects of climate change? If you accept this is the scientific consensus (accepted by 99% of scientists by the latest figures, 97%+ by most), then the burden of proof for your claim must be on you.
Can you link and explain to me your evidence to suggest our modern-day greenhouse gas pollution ISN'T affecting climate change? (And also, please enlighten me how it's beneficial).
If you don't accept that the scientific consensus is that climate change is man's fault, then just reply so and we can discuss from there.
So do you accept that the scientific consensus is that our current CO2 output is significant, and is indeed accelerating effects of climate change? If you accept this is the scientific consensus (accepted by 99% of scientists by the latest figures, 97%+ by most), then the burden of proof for your claim must be on you.
Can you link and explain to me your evidence to suggest our modern-day greenhouse gas pollution ISN'T affecting climate change? (And also, please enlighten me how it's beneficial).
If you don't accept that the scientific consensus is that climate change is man's fault, then just reply so and we can discuss from there.
Because people usually get annoyed at things that don't exist
Original post by Kuola1
We are literally destroying this planet and when someone speaks out about it some people seem to get so angry.
For example if you go on Greta Thunberg's Twitter the comments are filled with people furiously denying climate change / pollution. I don't get why so many people deny it and why they get so angry about it?
For example if you go on Greta Thunberg's Twitter the comments are filled with people furiously denying climate change / pollution. I don't get why so many people deny it and why they get so angry about it?
Okay, so you deny the consensus. Let's start from square one.
Regarding your first sentence, rephrasing your point isn't proof of the original point. You say man-made CO2 is causing a "small warming". Small, to most, has connotations of insignificant - but you don't accept that it IS insignificant. So do you then believe man-made CO2 is causing any variable amount of warming, which is indeed significant? Again, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding your second paragraph; my usage of accelerating is semantically up for interpretation if you wish to be pedantic... By acceleration, I meant to explain that man-made CO2 is actively promoting CO2. Which is true, and something I think we both agree on. This is good.
Regarding your third paragraph; oh boy. By using the word some, you are being very disingenuine to yourself and anyone else who reads your post. "Some" is just ignorance. A better phrasing would be "vast majority, with a few sceptical and very little if ANY deniers with scientific accreditation".
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Again, I must emphasis the burden of proof is ON YOU and you've yet to cite any sources that back your claim. I've cited 5 sources, no to mention that American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society and The Geological Society of America ALL support this claim.
As regular civilians, you and I have not done any methodologically valid investigations into climate change. Can you see how, to follow laymen, that the evidence supporting man's causal effect on climate change is significantly more paramount than you on TSR saying "no"? This is a lot to take in, I understand; take your time replying.
However, if you reply by just dismissing my evidence without providing your own valid sources... then the debate is over. We will never get anywhere with your mindset of just denial and lack of proof.
How can you have the audacity to tell thousands of climate scientists that they are wrong... without proof?
Regarding your first sentence, rephrasing your point isn't proof of the original point. You say man-made CO2 is causing a "small warming". Small, to most, has connotations of insignificant - but you don't accept that it IS insignificant. So do you then believe man-made CO2 is causing any variable amount of warming, which is indeed significant? Again, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding your second paragraph; my usage of accelerating is semantically up for interpretation if you wish to be pedantic... By acceleration, I meant to explain that man-made CO2 is actively promoting CO2. Which is true, and something I think we both agree on. This is good.
Regarding your third paragraph; oh boy. By using the word some, you are being very disingenuine to yourself and anyone else who reads your post. "Some" is just ignorance. A better phrasing would be "vast majority, with a few sceptical and very little if ANY deniers with scientific accreditation".
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Again, I must emphasis the burden of proof is ON YOU and you've yet to cite any sources that back your claim. I've cited 5 sources, no to mention that American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society and The Geological Society of America ALL support this claim.
As regular civilians, you and I have not done any methodologically valid investigations into climate change. Can you see how, to follow laymen, that the evidence supporting man's causal effect on climate change is significantly more paramount than you on TSR saying "no"? This is a lot to take in, I understand; take your time replying.
However, if you reply by just dismissing my evidence without providing your own valid sources... then the debate is over. We will never get anywhere with your mindset of just denial and lack of proof.
How can you have the audacity to tell thousands of climate scientists that they are wrong... without proof?
(edited 4 years ago)
So why are we experiencing record temperatures and why is every climate scientist with any form of integrity saying you are wrong? Are you suggesting we can burn more fossil fuels with gay abandon with no consequence?
And yes, I do worry about pollution including CO2.
And yes, I do worry about pollution including CO2.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
