Do you despise the global warming deniers as much as I do?

Question

They want to destroy the earth and everything on it.

Answer 1

I don't hate them because they don't believe in it, but if they lie about it that is another thing.  For example, here is an answer to another question:

"But I also realize there is NO scientific evidence to support AGW. It is an unproven theory designed to redistribute the wealth."

Listen, you can say there's not ENOUGH scientific evidence to believe in AGW, but saying there is NO evidence is just a lie.  Then topping it off with nonsense about wealth distribution is garbage. People don't have to believe in it, fine, but lying is wrong.

Answer 2

Yes I really really despice those guys.

They can't see what's going on, they all think it's mother nature working.

Answer 3

I'm not a "denier" but I am a 'skeptic'.

Remember years ago when scientists/environmentalists assured us that burning corn ethanol in our vehicles would be cleaner than regular old gasoline??  Now.... $$Billions of taxpayer subsidies later, they (the scientists and environmentalists) have found that ethanol actually pollutes MORE than regular gasoline.  Now THAT's the kind of knee-jerk reaction that I do not want to be a part of OR pay for!!

There is still no hard evidence to indicate that man is affecting our climate.  I'm all for clean air and water....etc., but until there is some convincing science and not simply 'guesses'...... I'm NOT going to join the AGW cult.

Answer 4

No. I don't think anyone wants to destroy the earth. calm down a little bit and realise that people are entitled to their own opinions. There are some holes in the global warming theory. What I don't like is when people do what you're doing; taking a biased look on the matter and DESPISING people who disagree with you. You need to get some sense and stop believing EVERYTHING you hear from the media. Did you ever think there may be more to it? Try getting out a film called The Great Global Warming Swindle. You don't have to agree with it, but you need to start opening your mind to other possibilities before despising people.

And what makes you guys all so sure about global warming? I doubt you are scientists yourselves and yet you are commenting on society as if you are above them.

Answer 5

We are NOT damaging something that has been around 4.5 billion years.  The ego and vanity of you believers is astounding.  

AGW is used for political purposes and it takes a disturbing amount of naiveté to miss this.  To suggest that deniers are uninterested in conservation is a gross oversimplification and simply wrong.

Answer 6

No, we want to keep making the earth a better place for people to live.     And the radical environmentalists have long fought a guerilla war against civilization itself.

"The only hope of the Earth is to withdraw huge areas as inviolate natural sanctuaries from the depredations of modern industry and technology. Move out the people and cars. Reclaim the roads and the plowed lands."

-Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior

"Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go..."

-John Davis, editor of Wild Earth magazine

"The crucial paradigm shift the Deep Ecology movement envisions as necessary to protect the planet from ecological destruction involves the move from an anthropocentric to a spiritual/ecocentric value orientation...Humanity must drastically scale down its industrial activities on Earth, change its consumption lifestyles, stabilize and then reduce the size of the human population by humane means, and protect and restore wild ecosystems and the remaining wildlife on the planet."

-George Sessions, editorial advisor, Wild Earth magazine

"Our vision is simple: we live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska; when Gray Wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland; when vast unbroken forest and flowing plains again thrive ans support pre-Columbian populations of plants and animals; when humans dwell with respect, harmony, and affection for the land; when we come to live no longer as strangers and aliens to this continent."

-Wildlands Project vision statement

One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshis... This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

-Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, 1991

"I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today" [and] "We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox."

-Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First!

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." -- Lamont Cole

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them." -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run." -- Economist editorial

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight." -- David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS." -- Earth First! Newsletter

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." -- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." -- Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

EDIT - pegminer is both right and wrong, of course.   When we say there's no evidence of AGW we mean the only evidence of AGW is the evidence of GW - there's no evidence of A.   So, to the extent that evidence of GW counts as evidence of AGW, then yes, that's evidence - but we all know what the question is - - it's not whether there was a modest warming in the 20th century, to levels near the levels reached during the MWP, but whether mankind caused it.

Answer 7

Depends on why they are deniers. Lots of people heve been so confused by the politicians lying about climate change that they honestly believe it is all a scare campaign. But the politicians and the corporate types who lie about it to avoid taking responsiblity? Those people there are no words for.

I believe that our children will be pursuing those people in international courts for crimes against humanity. They have known for decades that this was happening and they have hidden information, they have outright lied to everyone. It has all been done in the name of profit. There is not a punishment which fits the crimes they have committed.

Answer 8

Notice that clear nights cool off rapidly, cloudy or humid nights do not. think of nights in the desert. This is because water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for 4% , with 1/4 of that blamed on humans.

    I suspect you have not researched the topic much, or you would  have more understanding of people who are skeptical about joining a fad that would result in great poverty. If the AGW fanatics were proposing sensible responses, like reducing speed limits, you'd get much more cooperation than if your ideas include ethanol fuel and "cap & trade"

   here is a good explanation , in laymans language, very readable

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/t...

Answer 9

Yea, the great thing about global warming is that it gives you a clear view of who are the proper people that you should hate.

This is why global warming and Nazism is closely associated.  In the 1930's the n**i's encouraged everyone to hate the Jews, now in the 2000's global warming gives the followers permission to hate "deniers".

Soon the streets will be filled with brown shirt global warming believers goose stepping down the streets looting the stores in the name of saving the earth!

Answer 10

Your feelings are understandable. You have a deep-seated faith in Global Warmism, so people who might shake your faith make you uncomfortable and angry. If you open your mind, you will feel better. try it, and see!

Answer 11

"Despise" implies "hate". Perhaps you need a shot of "common sense".

The Earth has been here longer than anyone actually knows.

IT has "warmed & cooled", numerous times BEFORE "we" got here.

WE have only been here a few thousand years.

Industry, only a couple of hundred.

According to the Bible, GOD created the heavens & the Earth.

GOD, also created man(kind).

GOD has foreknowledge.

IF we concur on these issues, do you think:

1) God wanted to destroy the planet, so HE put us here.

2) God was stupid to make man(kind), more powerful than "nature".

3) God knows some of us are "right", & some of us are "wrong". The ones who are "right", MAY be able to explain things, in a "non-hysterical" way, to the IDIOTS who are "wrong".

Where do YOU fit in?

Answer 12

Yes-- that's what we want to do-- destroy the Earth. I started working on this just yesterday. I plan to dump used oil cans into the local lake-- throw my trash out the window onto the ground-- and buy the biggest car I can get my hands-on just to use more gasoline.

I have also been thinking about dumping my old sofa into the nearest culvert.

Answer 13

being a global warming 'denier', or more correctly a SKEPTIC, i don't actually despise myself.

i do, however, despise the unquestioning leap onto the bandwagon.

and yes..... interesting how Al Bore pays carbon credits to his own company he set up.  LOL

Answer 14

Yes, there are people out there who want to destroy the earth and everything on it.  They're green and they live on Mars; they're just vacationing on Earth.  (Ack, where's the wig to hide my green Martian hair?!)  Do you ever wonder why people don't believe anything you say when you have that attitude?

I don't think desipising them is going to do you any good, either.  When did this become a war that we have to fight over who's right, exactly?  I didn't think that was the point of the issue.  Being right means nothing if you're the only person who feels that way, so you might try at least not alienating those on the fence about the issue?

Answer 15

No, I don't despise them and don't believe they want to destroy the earth.  I believe many of the tactics they are trying to use to swift boat environmental concerns are despicable, and some have political and personal agendas that are purely selfish, but by and large I see them as ill-informed and hapless entertainment sequestered for the most part in little pockets of conversation while the serious research goes on.

Now, skepticism is a different cat, and many deniers like to think of themselves as skeptics, which is a linguistic distinction that lends itself to some manipulation.  Science itself demands skepticism-looking at evidence and being skeptical of the conclusions one draws as a result, then testing those conclusions is how science and technology advances.  Skepticism can be a good thing, and if we look at the massive amount of data and research compiled to date that indicates GW/AGW is occurring, then ask ourselves what the outcome going to be, we do want to be skeptical of those who claim the total destruction of humankind is in the offing if we don't immediately dismantle civilization as we know it, or that the coasts of the U.S. are going to be inundated with water 20 feet deep in the near future, etc. etc.  So there are two sides to the skeptics; one side might be described as honest, the other, not...and those sides may also be ascribed to either camp-the believers and the non-believers.  Those in the non-believing camp who continually repeat stuff that has been disproven, claim that GW/AGW is a giant political and economic hoax, blame the 'hypocritical Al Gore' ad infinitum, or flat out claim that GW/AGW is not occurring at all as if it is a fact cannot lay claim to the 'skeptic' title-they are the deniers.

Having made that distinction, I prefer to avoid making more of their denial than some would; one of the reasons deniers object so strongly to the label of 'denial' is that it implies something more sinister than is really intended.  The worst thing it implies is some sort of fellowship with deniers of the Holocaust.  But of course, deniers don't really want to destroy the earth or people like n***s destroyed the Jews, with malice and forethought.  That's just inflammatory rhetoric on par with those who would claim that believers and environmentalists and liberals are set on the goal of taking away individual liberties, dismantling democracy and destroying western culture altogether.  Neither is remotely accurate in total, and neither advances the legitmate debate; rather, it cripples progress and thoughtful discussion.

And the discussion itself is crucial; the issues at hand are not so much about whether GW/AGW is occurring, whether we call it 'global warming' or 'climate change' or whether we dub each other believers, sheep, deniers or skeptics.  There are very legitimate and potentially deadly concerns being argued about under the banner of global warming, from the impact billions of human beings and our wanton use of ever-diminishing resources will have on the environment and our future success, to the enormous and continuing transfer of wealth from the many to the few-some of whom absolutely devote a portion of the revenues received to the goal of destruction of western civilization.  And those concerns are what we should be discussing, rather than focusing so exclusively on GW/AGW itself.  I think we should all study the issues and be skeptical of the proposals being put forth, but as a society we need to advance the debate well beyond the present non-productive yammering to one of substance and examine the crucial issues we are facing worlwide.  By and large we've spent nearly 40 years in general denial about this day arriving even though we knew it was inevitable-so despising the deniers that remain also implies that those of us who remained silent as long as we were comfortable and the flow of energy was cheap and plentiful should also despise ourselves.

Answer 16

I'll take that as a compliment...

Come on, we don't want to destroy the earth. Many of us care about the environment. The fact is, that we see man-made global warming as impossible or, in some cases, we don't see it having an impact. In warmer temperatures, the Earth tends to thrive.

Why don't you get to know the deniers better before deciding to despise them?

Answer 17

While I try not to despise anyone, its becomes difficult when questions like this are posted

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Answer 18

No. They have a right to their opinion just as everyone else.

What gets up my nose are politicians (spokespersons of the world's wealthy) who know global warming is destroying mankind's future, but do nothing to stop it. Anyone who thinks halving present day carbon emissions by the year 2050 is going to make any difference is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Answer 19

I don't think they want to destroy it. They're just doubtful, for a variety of reasons.

I think they are fooling themselves, but that's not necessarily bad, in the broad scheme of things. Deniers are the reason that science is what it is, and why it has come so far. Those who have had ideas that turned out incorrect are just as responsible for the advancement of science as those with correct ideas.

Let me put it this way: if climate change weren't such a controversial subject, people wouldn't be putting as much effort into it.

Firstly, individuals (including politicians) who aren't in the field wouldn't be nearly as well informed about this matter if it weren't such a red button in the media. And since the changes we must enact must be enacted by virtually EVERYONE, it is in our best interests to keep the subject in the limelight.

Secondly, scientists are having to bend over backwards to find substantial bodies of data in order to get appropriate policies enacted. This has the fortunate side effect of providing us with ample information about the climate that we wouldn't have had otherwise. These findings will be vital to mitigating and/or preparing for the climate changes in store.

All in all, I'd say that global warming deniers are actually doing us a vital service.

Answer 20

I despise the 'leader' of the 'Cult of Denial" ....d**k Cheney!

I think the 'deniers' were encouraged by the censoring of the facts about the serious human health effects from AGW!

Along with the oil co. illegal efforts to downgrade and censor the science of AGW,the Bush admin. is guilty of a deadly cover-up!  

A prime example of the power of the oil co. and the admin to control the 'debate' is the rise of a 'top answerer' ,always spewing the falsehoods and the misleading "talking points" of the oil co. and the neo-cons!  The religious right gets a lot of 'mileage' out of the 'debate'.  Just look at all the people on here that use the claim that it just a 'natural' change, and that mere mortal humans cannot actually do ANYTHING that can change the Earth that their "god" made.  I wouldn't mind at all if YA deleted this category!  There isn't a category on "evolution" for all the 'deniers' to flock to. We need to have a 'category' on what to do about the effects of AGW, not a a category where there is NO positive outcome,only a continuous revolving argument!

Answer 21

If only it were real no one would have to deny it.

Answer 22

I wouldn't say despise, but I definitely have some frustration and anger sometimes.  The ones who understand the science but are not convinced are rare but perfectly tolerable.  The ones who claim it is all some liberal conspiracy just because of higher taxes and other proposed changes really need to stop wasting their energy "enlightening" others.  They need to accept the reality that, climate change or not, we humans are damaging the planet and it is time to move on from fossil fuels to new fuel and energy sources.