5 of 7
5
What’s really behind Global Climate Change denial
Posted: 25 November 2012 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
StephenLawrence - 25 November 2012 02:17 PM

I’ve made a pie chart and have tried dropping it on my head from various heights but I did not get crushed. I’ve posted a video of the experiments on youtube. This along with the fact that nobody has made a model replicating crushing by pie chart proves it is physically impossible.

Stephen

Physically impossible, perhaps.  But metaphorically possible?  I have to trust my own perceptions and conclusions, on this one.  The truth is out there…

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2012 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2232
Joined  2007-04-26
Occam. - 24 November 2012 07:56 PM

And your argument about CO2 vs. H20 vapor as green house gasses is fallacious.  With the majority of our planet’s surface ocean, we always have a huge amount of water in the atmosphere.  However, while there was an equilibrium amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for many centuries, when we began retrieving large amounts of carbon and carbon compounds from where they had been sequestered and burning them, we shifted the CO2 equalibrium severely.

Occam

The deniers like to use water as the scape goat for global warming because its correlation with rising temperatures is compelling to those who are uneducated. The amount of water contained in the atmosphere will go up as global temperatures rise but this is because warmer air can hold more water and warmer water will evaporate at a greater rate. In turn, increasing water vapor levels in the atmosphere will then cause temperatures to rise but only to a point ( eventually cloud cover increases and this increases the amount of sunlight reflected away from the planet). This interaction is complex enough though to convince deniers and their followers that there is much more to global warming than CO2 levels and that climate science is too complicated for anyone to understand and therefor climate scientists don’t know what they are talking about.

Climate science is complex but not incomprehensible for those who take the time and make the effort to study it. This is why i believe its a fools game to try and engage deniers in a scientific discussion of the arguments for and against AGW. It plays right into their trap. The more you play point counterpoint with them the more it looks like there are two equal sides to the discussion. The people who know the most about this have already played this game on a much higher level and those who were deniers in the scientific community have nearly all changed their tune.

Its a joke for the common man ( including media pundits) to pretend to have this debate again and believe that they have anything new,relevant, or important to say.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2012 07:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15
Coldheart Tucker - 24 November 2012 09:06 AM

If we started work on a SuperGrid system for energy distribution in the US, it would yield a number of benefits for us outside of greenhouse gas reductions. 

Absolutely. The challenge here is convincing investors who are used to short-term returns on investments.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2012 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15

Ending climate change denial is difficult, because the fossil fuel industry has hired excellent marketing professionals. It is possible to come up with simple messages to spread doubt about the seriousness of the climate problem. It is far more difficult to refute these simple messages, because climate science is complex. Still, the people who are concerned about the climate have to create good marketing strategies as well using powerful messages. Here are some I find useful:

1) Denying man-made climate change is like denying that cigarettes are addictive.

2) Denying global warming is like denying an increasing population of the United States.

3) Denying that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases is like claiming that the planet Venus is made of green cheese.

4) Telling people that CO2 is fertilizer for plants is like telling people to eat more vitamin D pills.

5) Telling people that the use of fossil fuels is cheaper than green technology is like telling people that cars without seat belts are cheaper.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2012 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

I like those suggestions, dansmith62. I’ve also found touting the economic benefits of green technology is an effective way to convince people to invest. Even the conservatives in Texas saw the money they could make off green energy, and Texas now leads the United States in wind power. We have a long, intense battle to wean our society off fossil fuels, but people are stating to awaken and see the damage we have done to our environment. Obama’s reelection and the recent severe weather events in the U.S. have given us an opportunity to make progress. I’m looking for an internship with an environmental organization for the spring 2013 semester and when I graduate next August will seek a job which allows me to do my part to educate people about what is happening and where we need to go.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2012 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15

This sounds encouraging, Darron. The problem is so serious, the world can’t afford the American society and American companies not participating in developing green technologies. We need the innovative spirit of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and all the others in the green sector as well. The new Google should be a company “Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Increase in Resource Productivity”. Here’s a great book with plenty of ideas how it can be done:

http://www.amazon.com/Factor-Five-Transforming-Improvements-Productivity/dp/1844075915/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2012 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
DarronS - 26 November 2012 08:10 AM

I like those suggestions, dansmith62. I’ve also found touting the economic benefits of green technology is an effective way to convince people to invest. Even the conservatives in Texas saw the money they could make off green energy, and Texas now leads the United States in wind power. We have a long, intense battle to wean our society off fossil fuels, but people are stating to awaken and see the damage we have done to our environment. Obama’s reelection and the recent severe weather events in the U.S. have given us an opportunity to make progress. I’m looking for an internship with an environmental organization for the spring 2013 semester and when I graduate next August will seek a job which allows me to do my part to educate people about what is happening and where we need to go.

I admire your vocational choice for its potential service to mankind.

I think that people tend to be much more motivated by the prospect of financial benefits than by the vague prospect of damge somewhere out in the future.  I am sure you will do well effectively bringing into focus and highighting the latter.  But I would suggest that you also heavily emphasize the prospect of superior affordability of alternatives.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2012 11:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31
dansmith62 - 26 November 2012 10:44 AM

The problem is so serious, the world can’t afford the American society and American companies not participating in developing green technologies. We need the innovative spirit of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and all the others in the green sector as well. The new Google should be a company “Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Increase in Resource Productivity”. Here’s a great book with plenty of ideas how it can be done:

I am afraid I am a little bit more pessimistic: I think we should change our countries in a way that ‘war economies’ do. During second World War in GB nearly everything was done with the danger of Nazi Germany in the foreground. Nearly all people made big offerings to keep the weapon industry and the military strong. People were prepared to do these offers. Only if all nearly all countries go into this mode, to survive the Greenhouse crisis, I give us chance. Our lives are in danger, that is the massage. Maybe some of you agree. But the others will call it ‘alarmism’ and just drive on as usual…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2012 11:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
GdB - 26 November 2012 11:29 PM
dansmith62 - 26 November 2012 10:44 AM

The problem is so serious, the world can’t afford the American society and American companies not participating in developing green technologies. We need the innovative spirit of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and all the others in the green sector as well. The new Google should be a company “Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Increase in Resource Productivity”. Here’s a great book with plenty of ideas how it can be done:

I am afraid I am a little bit more pessimistic: I think we should change our countries in a way that ‘war economies’ do. During second World War in GB nearly everything was done with the danger of Nazi Germany in the foreground. Nearly all people made big offerings to keep the weapon industry and the military strong. People were prepared to do these offers. Only if all nearly all countries go into this mode, to survive the Greenhouse crisis, I give us chance. Our lives are in danger, that is the massage. Maybe some of you agree. But the others will call it ‘alarmism’ and just drive on as usual…

If you are correct, then we are doomed.  Most people will simply not see the threat to be as grave or imminent.  Therefore, I think that the only possible effective approach, other than to keep sounding the alarm, is to promote the development of less expensive renewable energy resources.  Most people may be inclined to get behind something that has the more immediate and consistently tangible effect of enhancing their pocketbook.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2012 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  50
Joined  2012-11-26
GdB - 26 November 2012 11:29 PM
dansmith62 - 26 November 2012 10:44 AM

The problem is so serious, the world can’t afford the American society and American companies not participating in developing green technologies. We need the innovative spirit of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and all the others in the green sector as well. The new Google should be a company “Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Increase in Resource Productivity”. Here’s a great book with plenty of ideas how it can be done:

I am afraid I am a little bit more pessimistic: I think we should change our countries in a way that ‘war economies’ do. During second World War in GB nearly everything was done with the danger of Nazi Germany in the foreground. Nearly all people made big offerings to keep the weapon industry and the military strong. People were prepared to do these offers. Only if all nearly all countries go into this mode, to survive the Greenhouse crisis, I give us chance. Our lives are in danger, that is the massage. Maybe some of you agree. But the others will call it ‘alarmism’ and just drive on as usual…

What you just wrote does in fact fully warrant that label, and most climate scientists worth anything would likely agree that your post was quite overstated.

 Signature 

His palm.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2012 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Megalomaniacal_Mental_Masturbator - 27 November 2012 12:32 AM

What you just wrote does in fact fully warrant that label, and most climate scientists worth anything would likely agree that your post was quite overstated.

While some climate scientists have published peer-reviewed articles concluding warming greater than 2 degrees C over preindustrial levels is unlikely, most studies I have seen, including the IPCC 4th Assessment, conclude 3-5 degrees is likely by the end of the century. We’re already seeing the effects 0.8 degrees warming is having on the planet, and they include more frequent and severe droughts, record Arctic Sea Ice loss, retreating glaciers, crop losses from heat stress, and more severe tropical cyclones. Four degrees would be an order of magnitude worse. The World Bank released a study last week detailing the likely effects of 4 degrees C warming. You can download the PDF here. The file is a bit more than 14MB, so you’ll need a high-speed connection or a lot of patience.

Most climate scientists worth anything would warn us we needed to change our ways 20 years ago to avoid the worst of climate change, and the best we can do now is not make things significantly worse than they are already.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2012 09:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  50
Joined  2012-11-26
GdB - 26 November 2012 11:29 PM

Only if all nearly all countries go into this mode, to survive the Greenhouse crisis, I give us chance. Our lives are in danger, that is the massage. Maybe some of you agree. But the others will call it ‘alarmism’ and just drive on as usual…

DarronS - 27 November 2012 09:16 AM

Most climate scientists worth anything would warn us we needed to change our ways 20 years ago to avoid the worst of climate change, and the best we can do now is not make things significantly worse than they are already.

I think you need to tune your understanding and message a little. It’s obviously not the easiest topic to persuade certain people on, and this sort of half-nonsense doesn’t help.

[ Edited: 27 November 2012 09:27 AM by BannedManReading ]
 Signature 

His palm.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2012 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

3M, do you have any studies to back your opinion? So far you haven’t offered anything of substance.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2012 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  50
Joined  2012-11-26

My opinion isn’t fundamentally at odds with your first paragraph.

 Signature 

His palm.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2012 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

Hmmmmm….looks like the greenhouse gas lies of the IPCC are finally being outed.

Messed up models, lying researchers….proud bunch !

Let us see how Dr Tim Ball does with the junk science promoters…...

Have you heard of him yet darrons ?

You will

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 7
5
 
‹‹ Weather forecast      The Vanishing North ››