It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Is Climate Change Theory So Hard to Understand?

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

That is exactly my point. Where do we draw the line? Why is it so personal and arbitrary?




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.
Obviously man effects the climate greatly and also this planet goes through climate cycles. The hottest years on record were in that last decade. This past winter in Buffalo was harsh for even me and I feel bad for the people in Boston who are not used to what they got. I saw pictures of snow covered deserts in the middle east just 3 months ago. As I sit and type, it is only 5/8 and it is like an oven in here, with a fan going and windows open.

I think I know why. It is often conservatives that will believe what other conservatives say. Not that every conservative denies climate change by man..but this definitely a political thing...when it should be based on science. I see the same politicians rail against gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc., rail against climate change science. It is that they are deluded or just pandering for money and votes. The bad thing is that they influence how the average citizen who is conservative thinks and what they believe. That is my take on it.
edit on 8-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I didn't read many responses but as I am a resident of Phoenix I'll participate by saying it's obvious something is happening. In May of this year Phoenix recorded it's first measurable rainfall in May since .....forever. Today it's raining something is changing.

Open your eyes.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: highfromphoenix
I didn't read many responses but as I am a resident of Phoenix I'll participate by saying it's obvious something is happening. In May of this year Phoenix recorded it's first measurable rainfall in May since .....forever. Today it's raining something is changing.

Open your eyes.
I lived there a couple years as a child. We had a large round thermometer on the fence by the pool. It normally read well over 100 degrees and I remember NO rain when I lived there.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

It's in the 70's, crazy #!

Check it out....


www.wunderground.com...



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71


Pick whatever story or data you wish. This is a conspiracy website that has people not believing everything that is fed to them.


This is exactly what the problem is here: you *think* you’re taking the anti-establishment/nonconformist/so-called “skeptical” approach, but you’re not – because global warming denial is in fact the real conspiracy, and you’re just eating all that propaganda up without so much as a second thought.

This thread is another perfect example: OP asked a simple question and first reply tried to derail it by going straight into “they used to call it global warming but now they call it climate change” bull#.

As Krazysh0t’s post on page 2 pointed out – scientists have been using the term climate (or climatic) change since at least the 1950s, but who got the media to switch semantics? Why it was none other than the Bush administration:


The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.


And why did they implement this “communications strategy”? Because they were trying to win a PR battle to downplay and deny the impact of harmful greenhouse gas emissions.


The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".


Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy

The science IS very clear on this issue, but it’s the politics and the delusional conspiracy mongering that have you all so seriously confused and fooled. The truth is not hard to unravel for anyone inclined to just follow basic physics, chemistry or even history on this subject.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The answer to the OP’s question is that most people simply prefer the sensationalist Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh approach. It offers easy but dishonest answers that forgo more difficult things like critical thinking or god forbid ever questioning your own personal and political beliefs. It also strokes egos like wildfire, feeding delusions about non-conformity and not believing what you’re being told, when the truth is so unbelievably exploitative and ironic.

Unfortunately that’s a very huge and sad part of the problem.

I've been a pretty conspiracy oriented person ever since being indoctrinated by the X-Files as a kid. But some of the biggest “sheep” I've ever seen in my life are right here on places like ATS.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Something that is hard to understand, is engineered to be hard to understand. Do you think Ponzi actually explained how his system worked to his marks? This is all BUNCO! They hope you'll agree with them because you have low self esteem and wish not to "appear" stupid. Well YOU ARE NOT STUPID! Watch for the latter technique, it is used quite regularly against you and don't fall for it. PEACE.


Yes we all need to be good stewards of the planet and you can't really do that as long as we are still using fossil fuels and "nooklar" power.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Why can only one side to this argument be only fueled by making more money for people?

Is oil/gasoline not one of the most profitable business around right now?

Of the top 10 fortune 500 companies, four of them are oil/gas...
Two are car manufactures. So eight of the top ten are highly invested in the way things work right now.

Ya, it is only about the money for one side alright.
edit on thFri, 08 May 2015 16:42:52 -0500America/Chicago520155280 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

The reverse of that is just as true.
Those same people will trust those involved in your instances and then all of the sudden switch when it comes to this.

I for one only have a problem with the first thing you listed.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
This is the problem with the solution.



It seems that for the global warming lobby, all that is necessary to set everything right is to hand control of the global economy over to governmental central planners. In their minds, the machinery of government only needs to be set in motion, and everything will be done with righteous precision to preserve the climatological status quo by increasing the cost of energy and cutting economic activity. The costs of such a venture, whether in money or in human lives and human comfort, need never be considered, because, we are told, the only alternative is the total destruction of planet earth.


The first problem is the only possible answer anyone needs to consider is to hand over power to the government for our own good.

We don't need to worry about the particulars of what the government will do or anything else. We don't even need to worry about what the actual answer to the problem is or why climate needs to suddenly not change when all the history of planet earth has been climate change.


For the sake of argument, let’s say that global climate change is occurring and that the sea level is rising. This still leaves several unanswered questions for the global warming enthusiasts:
1.What is the cost of your plan to various populations in terms of the standard of living and human lives?
2.Is the cost of your plan greater than or less than the cost of other solutions, such as the gradual relocation populations from coastal areas.
3.Can you show that your plan has a very high probability of working, and if not, why should we implement it when we could spend those same resources on other more practical solutions and more immediate needs such as clean water, food, and basic necessities?


How much detail do we get? None, and when someone does pose questions, we get called "denialists" who want everyone to die and the earth to burn and hate science. One might almost think they don't want to answer the question either because they don't have the answers or because they know we won't like them.

It reminds me of how we got called racist for questioning Obamacare, and we all saw how that turned out.


All too often, the response to questions such as these are angry diatribes about how we must act now. But of course, such a position is similar to that of a person who, upon seeing that winter is approaching demands that everyone build the winter shelter his way immediately. “Can’t you people see it’s getting colder?” he says. “If we don’t build the shelter my way, we’ll all freeze.” When faced with questions of whether or not his shelter plan is really the best way to proceed, or if a different type of shelter might be more cost effective, or if others would rather build their own shelter, he angrily declares “you winter deniers don’t care if we all die.”

Naturally, if the group then goes ahead with their belligerent companion’s shelter plan, they may find in the end that the shelter fails to keep out the cold or is structurally unsound. In that case, the group is actually much worse off because it expended large amounts of valuable resources that should have been applied elsewhere.


And that's really it. They see only one way to do it, and we must all do it that way. There is no room for discussion and we must all be forced into it.

The long and the short of it is this:

Proposed carbon cuts are arbitrary. No one knows if the proposed limits will do anything or be enough even supposing there is a problem in the first place. We do know that they will severely limit economic activity though and that means severe losses and cost increases. And it's the poor and poor nations who suffer the most from that.

Can they prove the costs of destroying our economy will outweigh the costs of any potential climate damage? Damage that they can't prove will occur only suppose might happen?

Everyone knows we need more fresh water. And in the past, methods that are energy intensive like desalination have been uneconomical. In fact, very often the same people who want to regulate water to prevent the rich from hoarding it, also want to handicap energy production which will only make it harder to make the energy intensive methods of fresh water production like desalination (CA ... anyone) more feasible. This again will only hurt the poor in favor of benefits to the planet that cannot be proven.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

^How off-topic (and yet indicative) is this answer to the OP's question?

"I don't believe in the science because the political solutions don't jive with my ideological views"


It's not even remotely true that the only solution involves handing everything over to the government - that's just more Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh fear-mongering nonsense. The main solutions involve kickstarting innovative industries in renewable power, sustainability, and energy efficiency, while also heavily cutting down on unnecessary and mindless overconsumption.

But this is something the conservative establishment and the free-market purists hate, because it goes against their M.O. of reckless profiteering and unsustainable growth above all else.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

The funniest, well I guess saddest actually, thing about that is that it is the deniers who keep the debate framed on taxes and carbon credits... not us, as you just showed.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: mc_squared

The funniest, well I guess saddest actually, thing about that is that it is the deniers who keep the debate framed on taxes and carbon credits... not us, as you just showed.


yeah. I mean what's the downside to this argument besides carbon credits/taxes. Where's the downside to any of this? Clean energy, solar power, cheaper energy, more recycling, electric cars, less pollution of all kinds, more trees, green buildings, less reliance on foreign oil, no more wars in Iraq or other Oil rich nations, better understanding of our environment and climate, mitigation of sea level rise and storm surges, plans of action against mass migration/War for drought effected third world countries and their populations...less reliance on old outdated monopolies. There is no downside.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Yup, as I've stated numerous times on here - the obtuse nature of this argument frustrates me more as a fellow conspiracy theorist than as a global warming "believer".

The myth that these solutions will somehow destroy our economy is based on the simple reality that it will actually destroy the plutocrats' BS Ponzi-driven fool's gold economy, where the rich get richer while everyone else suffers. This concern is the entire basis of the real conspiracy to deny man made global warming.

It ain't rocket science, but it takes a few more brain cells to put together than just freaking out about taxes and weather stations in Paraguay and all the other tinfoil fluff.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.


I don't think it's that hard to understand. The thing is the world has been changing for billions of years, Climates change. Over time places that were once lush forest and river valleys turn to deserts and so on.. My whole problem with the "Global Warming" crew is they are trying to make money off it and doing nothing to actually change anything.. Its used as fear mongering and a way to extort/tax the general populace while fat cats get to zip around the globe on private jets that put out more carbon than a normal person would produce driving to work in a year.

It's a scam to control people period.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.


Good Luck. I think it's an easy systems problem myself.

But low education people who lack critical thinking and discrimination skills are easily hoodwinked by prograganda and other rhetorical tactics that confuse. In fact many well educated people, if their education has neglected these discriminatory skills, often fall prey to BS too.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

I'm right there with you, growling and teeth bared lol.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: highfromphoenix
a reply to: reldra

It's in the 70's, crazy #!

Check it out....


www.wunderground.com...


and buffalo is 84 degrees now Buffalo weather



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71


Pick whatever story or data you wish. This is a conspiracy website that has people not believing everything that is fed to them.


This is exactly what the problem is here: you *think* you’re taking the anti-establishment/nonconformist/so-called “skeptical” approach, but you’re not – because global warming denial is in fact the real conspiracy, and you’re just eating all that propaganda up without so much as a second thought.

This thread is another perfect example: OP asked a simple question and first reply tried to derail it by going straight into “they used to call it global warming but now they call it climate change” bull#.



As Krazysh0t’s post on page 2 pointed out – scientists have been using the term climate (or climatic) change since at least the 1950s, but who got the media to switch semantics? Why it was none other than the Bush administration:


The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.


And why did they implement this “communications strategy”? Because they were trying to win a PR battle to downplay and deny the impact of harmful greenhouse gas emissions.


The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".


Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy

The science IS very clear on this issue, but it’s the politics and the delusional conspiracy mongering that have you all so seriously confused and fooled. The truth is not hard to unravel for anyone inclined to just follow basic physics, chemistry or even history on this subject.



You Sir Are Outstanding! sorry about the ad in front...I will get this done well eventually.

edit on 8-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join