Why do people get so angry about climate change? Watch

Kuola1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
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?
5
reply
ساره
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
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...
Last edited by ساره; 1 month ago
2
reply
_gcx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
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.
10
reply
Kitten in boots
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
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.
8
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(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?
No, we are not destroying the planet. CO2 is good for it.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by _gcx)
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.
Define 'climate change' then define 'climate change denier'.
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Define 'climate change' then define 'climate change denier'.
can't really be bothered, commonly accepted definitions can probably be found here.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by _gcx)
can't really be bothered, commonly accepted definitions can probably be found here.
If you dont define them then you can always shout 'denier'. That is why you need to define them. You are using lazyness as an excuse because you want the easy slur.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
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.
1
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by ByEeek)
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.
Hahaha! Oh come on, you dont really believe the BS you are fed by the likes of Al Gore do you? Really!
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Hahaha! Oh come on, you dont really believe the BS you are fed by the likes of Al Gore do you? Really!
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.
1
reply
mike44
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
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.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by ByEeek)
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.
You want me to disprove something that hasnt been proved? Come on.

> Have you not noticed that temps haven't dipped much below 6 so far this winter?
A one year trend, wow! (And the last two years had snow in the west country, which is very very rare.)

>Something that didn't really happen 30 years ago

Really happen? Do you are just guessing.

We live in a maritime climate, feb is the coldest month. (In fact we have had frosts in the west country already this winter, so in fact you are wrong anyway).,

But so what! What does 0.7 C warmer since 1880 mean anyway! whole countries will be on fire with major cities submerged in water? Dont be ridiculous!

It means the average temperature has risen a bit, and man has played a part. That is it. Countries are not on fire and cities not submerging. (unless they built on aluvial soil, built high, and took out the ground water, in which case it is just subsidence)
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
You want me to disprove something that hasnt been proved? Come on.

> Have you not noticed that temps haven't dipped much below 6 so far this winter?
A one year trend, wow! (And the last two years had snow in the west country, which is very very rare.)

>Something that didn't really happen 30 years ago

Really happen? Do you are just guessing.

We live in a maritime climate, feb is the coldest month. (In fact we have had frosts in the west country already this winter, so in fact you are wrong anyway).,

But so what! What does 0.7 C warmer since 1880 mean anyway! whole countries will be on fire with major cities submerged in water? Dont be ridiculous!

It means the average temperature has risen a bit, and man has played a part. That is it. Countries are not on fire and cities not submerging. (unless they built on aluvial soil, built high, and took out the ground water, in which case it is just subsidence)
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?

Last edited by ByEeek; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
DR.DOOM
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
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?"
Last edited by DR.DOOM; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by ByEeek)
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?

Now now, stop lying, I said the world has warmed and man has played a part, I did not say it was caused by man. This is a position I have always held, so also dont try to make it look as if I have changed.

Why that graph is a fabrication is because it shows more warming than happened and ignores the 1930s warm period, warmer than today in the US, Canada, Greenland, and the post 1940s cooling, which was pronounced and gave rise to fears of entering a new ice age.

The data used, from NOAA, has been adjusted, in just the same way as GISS adjust their data, erasing cold periods in the past: GISS adjustments

Here is a discussion of scientists involved removing the 1940s 'blip'. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"

T
he data has been adjusted, they tell you it has been adjusted, and state the reason for the adjustment.

Happy? COnvinced that that graph is crap?
0
reply
FlexyWex101
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
Spoiler:
Show
Same reason meat eaters get angry when called out by vegan and vegetarians, or even when they're just as the same table as one. Part guilt. Part embarrassment. Another part not wanting to make short term sacrifices for a long term gain. But my guess is that most of it centres around how the issue is raised. Shaming people ala Greta Thunberg's tactics isn't the way to make attitudes change. It makes people angry and often causes them to double down on their beliefs, no matter how logically you rebuke them. So yeah, I think the main reason people get so angry about being lectured about climate change is that they're being LECTURED. If climate change activists were a bit more tactful, they might get a better reaction.



Last edited by FlexyWex101; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(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?
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.
Last edited by Wired_1800; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Now now, stop lying, I said the world has warmed and man has played a part, I did not say it was caused by man. This is a position I have always held, so also dont try to make it look as if I have changed.

Why that graph is a fabrication is because it shows more warming than happened and ignores the 1930s warm period, warmer than today in the US, Canada, Greenland, and the post 1940s cooling, which was pronounced and gave rise to fears of entering a new ice age.

The data used, from NOAA, has been adjusted, in just the same way as GISS adjust their data, erasing cold periods in the past: GISS adjustments

Here is a discussion of scientists involved removing the 1940s 'blip'. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"

T
he data has been adjusted, they tell you it has been adjusted, and state the reason for the adjustment.

Happy? COnvinced that that graph is crap?
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?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by ByEeek)
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?
What facts? You dont have any. A fake graph based on just over a century of data and a lot of alarming stories about what 'might' happen.

You want facts? Holocene temps That is how warm it was recently. Todays temps are nothing to worry about.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (360)
66.91%
No (178)
33.09%

Watched Threads

View All