Global Warming is Human Caused
Posted: 10 April 2010 01:06 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2010-03-03

The idea that humans are not causing climate change is about as ridiculous as the idea that alcohol does not cause drunkenness.  Today on “Science Friday” I heard that 97% of the climate scientists believe humans are causing climate change.  They stopped calling it global warming for some reason.  Recently I watched “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore and he used the example of tobacco industry deception as a parallel to global warming deception.  The propaganda we are subjected to that supports the deception really reeks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2010 02:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2010-02-28

Indeed, both Citizens Challenge and I write about it exhaustively wink

There’s some good resources out there on the topic. Google these:

- DeSmogBlog
- Skeptical Science
- Real Climate

All of these are excellent resources for understanding the science and the deniers themselves.

The sad truth is the science is rock solid. The denial movement has been very successful in confusing the public.

 Signature 

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2010 06:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

People do not want to believe we are causing global climate change because acknowledging AGW carries with it the responsibility to do something about it. This would mean drastic measures such as giving up the boat, trading the SUV for a more fuel efficient vehicle, turning up the thermostat a few degrees in the summer and turning off the lights when leaving a room. The people who already have seven children would be forced to decide which children to keep and which to send off to scientific experiments.*

A literary allusion to Monty Python’s Every Sperm is Sacred (potentially not safe for work)

[ Edited: 10 April 2010 06:37 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2010 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
DarronS - 10 April 2010 06:17 AM

People do not want to believe we are causing global climate change because acknowledging AGW carries with it the responsibility to do something about it….

Don’t think this is the reason….

People don’t see how their kids contribute to world population growth either——

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 05:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1423
Joined  2010-04-22

There’s also a very common logical fallacy that people fall into:

People don’t like some of the solutions (cap and trade, etc.) so they deny the cause, even though global warming does not necessarily mandate such solutions.

There is also confusion about what the predictions are.  I’ve seen everything from 2-10 degrees Celcius temperature gains, to the destruction of all life on Earth, even amongst people who accept that global warming is happening.  2-10 degrees?  Probably.  Earth turning into Venus?  Definitely not.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2010 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Mike from Oz - 10 April 2010 02:33 AM

Indeed, both Citizens Challenge and I write about it exhaustively wink

There’s some good resources out there on the topic. Google these:

- DeSmogBlog
- Skeptical Science
- Real Climate

All of these are excellent resources for understanding the science and the deniers themselves.

The sad truth is the science is rock solid. The denial movement has been very successful in confusing the public.

What is the solution? You’re asking people to give up their lively-hood the energy creates lots of jobs. Helps to keep the economy running. You’re asking people to sacrifice for something which may happen. (Some natural disaster cause by GW)

Bad solution IMO is depending on everyone else to do the “right” thing. I don’t think humans as a species have a very good track record at that.

Yes people will accept any plausible explanation so they don’t have to sacrifice. That’s not going to change, you can’t control how people think. IMO to complain about how everyone is not listening and or accepting responsibility is not solving anything.

Better to take people who understand the science. Who understand the carbon dioxide cycle and have them work on a solution that doesn’t involve waiting for everyone else to change their lifestyle cause that ain’t going to happen.

Either science can fix the problem or it can’t. Or when people start dying off in large numbers the problem will fix itself.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2010 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Gnostikosis - 29 June 2010 12:44 PM

What is the solution? You’re asking people to give up their lively-hood the energy creates lots of jobs. Helps to keep the economy running. You’re asking people to sacrifice for something which may happen. (Some natural disaster cause by GW)

That is part of the absurd and contradictory issue of the entire business.

Hasn’t the production of cars designed to become obsolete contributed to this excess of CO2 for the last 50 years?  But how many so called scientists have complained about that planned obsolescence in the last 50 years?

But our educators have not been suggesting that accounting be mandatoryin the schools during that time and the economics profession has not been collecting and reporting data on the depreciation of all of those crapmobiles.

Don’t SCIENTISTS buy cars?  Shouldn’t they have noticed long before now?  We can put men on the Moon and make jets do 2000 mph but can’t figure out planned obsolescence in cars and extrapolate the ecological consequences?

Ain’t SCIENCE Grand when it serves the power structure?  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2010 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

A frequent argument is that humans contribute only 2 or 3 % to the total CO2 and methane emissions so it’s silly to blame them.  The problem is that when a system is in balance, small factors can cause major changes.  A movie gimmick that demonstrates this is the situation where a car or truck has crashed over the side of a bridge and is balancing precariously.  The bad guys are trying to figure how to get out, but a bird lands on the hood of the truck so it tips and falls into the river far below.  And this is exactly what’s happening now.  Of course they also forget the other factor in the balance - plants sequestering CO2.  As we cut down forests, and turn green fields into developments, we reduce that sequestering.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2010 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Occam - 29 June 2010 06:01 PM

A frequent argument is that humans contribute only 2 or 3 % to the total CO2 and methane emissions so it’s silly to blame them.  The problem is that when a system is in balance, small factors can cause major changes.

The Keeling Curve says it all.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html

2% per year for 50 years.  Nah, that’s trivial.

But I get the impression that a lot of people cannot connect the numbers and graphs to reality.  It is too abstract therefore it is no different from imaginary.  A delusion of paranoids.  But it is pretty hypocritical of scientists to expect everyone to get excited now after saying nothing about all of those crappy cars for DECADES.  They let the stupid consumer culture become a habit and now they want to break the habit just like that.  YEAH RIGHT!

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2010 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-07-06

First:

Global warming is man-made. Here’s the scientific evidence supporting AGW.

A. CO2 emissions are increasing. In 1870 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 290 ppm. As of 2010, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen to 388 ppm. As explained below, very carefully calibrated measurements have confirmed that humans activities are the primary cause of this increase.

Since the industrial revolution, we’ve been burning fossil fuels and clearing/burning forests at an unprecedented rate. Through the measurements of specific carbon isotopes, we know these activities are the primary cause of increasing atmospheric CO2.
http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2010 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07

I have “conservative” friends and “liberal” friends.

Interestingly my conservative friends think AGW is a hoax and my liberal friends accept it without question.

My liberal friends have little actual understanding the the science behind it. My conservative friends are well educated.

I suspect my liberal friends trust claims made by Al Gore. I suspect my conservative friends trust someone like Rush Limbaugh.

People are still kind of sheepish. Not in every aspect. What people have knowledge and experience of they rely on their own understanding. What they are unfamiliar with they rely on some trusted spokes-person of their particular ideology.

If you want to covert over people’s thinking. First convert their own trusted spokes-person. The sheep will follow.

Profile