Mainstream Environmentalists are far worse on the climate than any climate change skeptic

Every mainstream environmental group has told me that they knew about climate change and what caused it since the 60s. The risk of other emissions was pretty well known at the time too. Yet every single mainstream environmental group was opposed to all forms of nuclear energy when, at the time, it was the only viable form of non-emitting energy source. (When I say all forms of nuclear, I mean they wanted and still want a complete blanket ban on nuclear energy or they call for regulations that would never allow for nuclear to be viable.)

This leads me to three conclusions:

1. These groups are lying about the claim of knowing about climate change or how bad it would be during the 60s-80s. This is because it is clear that the risk of climate change is far greater than whatever assumed risk is attributable to nuclear. I guess this is in order to manipulate young people like me to do what they want.

2. They are terrible at evaluating risk because they assumed that the risk of nuclear energy is far greater than climate change and the other emissions from fossil fuels, when the evidence shows that this clearly isn't the case.

3. The mainstream environmentalists understood the actual risk of climate change and understood how extremely low the risk of using nuclear energy is, but still opposed the use of nuclear energy for purely ideological reasons.

All of these conclusions demonstrate that the actions mainstream environmentalists clearly resulted in the drastic increase of cumulative emissions in the US because coal was used instead of nuclear and it demonstrates that they are either deceptive about what they claim to have known in the past, utterly incompetent at evaluating risk, or they are outright misanthropes.

Why should I trust these people and why should I not push back at whatever they want for the energy system? I don't trust them

 

What's crazy to me about this is how mainstream environmentalists deny this even occurred. The mainstream media has never done a good job representing any science, so why was this said now about the media claimed then? Instead, the mainstream environmentalists just lie and deny that there were articles about global cooling.

They behave like they want to cover something up then get surprised that people believe that they are. Goes back to why I don't trust them.

Well, science 'denial' (utterly manipulative word for this, but I didn't come up with it) goes both ways. I would argue that people who greatly exaggerate the risk of climate change have caused more people to be climate skeptics than any supposed 'big oil' propaganda. Of course you can't expect any honest engagement from the left there.

I have tons of friends that are climate skeptics and when you boil down to why it almost always stems from the claims of exaggerators never coming true, the observation that mainstream environmentalists don't support nuclear or any other sensible measures, the extreme hypocrisy of the people saying that something needs to be done (eg carbon intensive travel to climate conferences instead of doing online video chats), concern that the stated goals won't actually work (eg 100% wind water and solar), and concern that climate change is just an excuse to impose tyranny (not wrong really). All of these reasons are completely due to the insanity that comes from mainstream environmentalists and the people who never criticize them.

 

Yeah, like maybe next century will a 3 foot rise in global sea levels happen, but it certainly isn't happening during the rest of your miserable lifespan.

 

I remember watching An Inconvenient Truth in one of my science classes in highschool. Al Gore presented data in such an emotionally manipulative way that I decided that people pushing for immediate action were all probably liars who were exaggerating the risk of climate change. Turns out it wasn't a bad call.

Realistically, there are multiple reasons for wanting to move away from fossil fuels - especially coal - that aren't climate related. The certainly would not have ended up with as much coal as it did if mainstream environmentalists didn't do everything they could to kill the nuclear industry. Large container ships and cruise ships could already be powered by nuclear energy, like the nuclear subs and air craft carriers are, but environmentalists will ban this over neo-con levels of fabricated terrorism risks. Not to mention how much industrial heating could be performed by nuclear too. Emissions could dramatically drop if environmentalists got out of the way.

 

oh please, all you have done with the covid stuff is present misleading data then accuse me of doing the same. You are trying to change the topic because you know I am right about mainstream environmentalists.

 

I just listed reasons why there are people who are skeptical about human caused climate change. I am not a climate skeptic (or denier according to your manipulative language). I just recognize that climate change as an issue isn't really going to bear itself out until late this century or early next century. This isn't misleading in any way. Geez.

Says the guy who literally cannot engage with a single fact that doesn't comport with his materialistic, political religion.

All you do is slander me and provide zero substance to as of why I am wrong. You are the only propagandist here.

Based on this response here, I take it that you have no argument against my observations on mainstream environmentalists.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions-basic.htm

"Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous century, and could rise between 50cm to 1.5 metres by 2100"

Even your precious little website agrees with my earlier claim about sea level rise. This just proves that you either have no clue what you are talking about or you are knowingly slandering me because you can't allow anyone to disagree with you.

Keep trying Bob. Maybe you'll actually say something correct before you die.

 

In my mind, I always separate what the media says from actual good science. I haven't read any climate studies from the 60s or 70s, so I have no clue what was being said then. I know that the media almost always gets the reporting on science wrong, so I find it very surprising that the approach to the media articles in the past is to deny that it ever happened. This type of deception makes people skeptical about the claims of climate change. It would be far more accurate to say that the media at the time didn't know what they are doing and encourage people to read primary sources (i.e. the studies themselves) rather than rely on the media to interpret it for them. But this doesn't happen. Very odd.

I am curious about this claim. I haven't read enough studies to really understand historical trends. Biggest issue I have with those graphs is the lack of error bars - especially when the methods to put all that data together may be different. I would like to know more about the warming periods that happened during human history. That seems like it would be interesting to look at. I've mostly just looked at how an energy transition would work because I found that more interesting.

This makes more sense in general. There is no guarantee that a bunch of volcanoes won't start erupting in the future to offset any reductions in emissions. That is a threat that is 10k years out though, but still something to think about.

In the US, FEMA pretty much guarantees that people will not stop doing that. it would be just as effective to build flood resistant homes too. Stuff like this is why I'm against national building standards. Different regions of the country have different conditions to adapt for.

 

Ok. It's clear now that you have nothing to say against my observations of mainstream environmentalists.

 

Long term to me means 10k years to millions of years. I am just curious to what things were like during warming periods in human history if it was warmer then than it is now. Not sure how much I believe that though. I am always skeptical of graphs with no error bars - especially when the methods of obtaining the data are all different.

lol. yep. If it is true, that spike would certainly be caused by some other set of factors.

Use the search engine Duck Duck Go https://duckduckgo.com/. They generally do not manipulate and censor like google does. I think it is based on Bing's indexing, but I'm not entirely too sure.

It is a shame that no civil discourse on this topic is really allowed to happen on mainstream platforms.