4 ms·

Skeptic here. I don't deny that the climate is changing. It always has been. However the notion that all of this is based on human activity is not something I s

Skeptic here. I don't deny that the climate is changing. It always has been. However the notion that all of this is based on human activity is not something I subscribe to. Climate change and the green initiatives have become a sort of religion which and a great way for certain people in power to drive their own business interests. There have been extreme weather cycles in the past and in some areas we had a period of calm for a number of years. In addition to that we had a period of cheap money and other factors that lead to development in areas that have a much higher likelihood of having a natural disaster destroy it over longer periods of time. Government natural disaster assistance for damage to these areas made it worse because there was not incentive to NOT develop homes in areas prone to issues or to take necessary precautions to adequately construct homes to be able to sustain the forces of a disaster. Now that we are in a cycle where there are more events, the actuarials are looking at the tables and determining that the risk it too high to insure based on current trends. Climate change is just the current in vogue cause so the insurance companies can use it for PR cover. "It's not our fault we can no longer insure your house.....climate change!"

bobsmooth 3y ago
>However the notion that all of this is based on human activity is not something I subscribe to. Do you think the massive amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has had no affect on the planet?
- lgleason 3y ago
  It's tough to say what the effect is. The science has been corrupted by political interests instead of an actual scientific discovery. The overblown histrionic predictions of doom from the activists/climate change believers does not help to give credibility of any effects that climate change may actually be having. Back in the 70s and 80s they were predicting an ice age by the early 2000's. That of course extreme scenario also did not occur. Once I started to understand what was happening to scientific research, the special interests, corporate and political interests on both sides of this equation an extreme view on either side naturally sets off my internal BS meter.
  - Daishiman 3y ago
    As someone who works daily with climate scientists making models that are actually used by people looking to turn a profit, if you actually believe there was a scientific consensus in the 80s about an ice age coming then you’re not researching actual science; you’re researching pop culture.

bobsmooth 3y ago

>However the notion that all of this is based on human activity is not something I subscribe to. Do you think the massive amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has had no affect on the planet?

lgleason 3y ago
It's tough to say what the effect is. The science has been corrupted by political interests instead of an actual scientific discovery. The overblown histrionic predictions of doom from the activists/climate change believers does not help to give credibility of any effects that climate change may actually be having. Back in the 70s and 80s they were predicting an ice age by the early 2000's. That of course extreme scenario also did not occur. Once I started to understand what was happening to scientific research, the special interests, corporate and political interests on both sides of this equation an extreme view on either side naturally sets off my internal BS meter.
- Daishiman 3y ago
  As someone who works daily with climate scientists making models that are actually used by people looking to turn a profit, if you actually believe there was a scientific consensus in the 80s about an ice age coming then you’re not researching actual science; you’re researching pop culture.