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.

 

Global Warming opposition is ideological in nature.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: odinsway
Science....damn....i meant science




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
S/F, to the OP. I agree with you totally.

My thoughts as I read through page 1:

yes, it is ideological. The response by jobless1 was a perfect example of the thing you brought up....refusal to acknowledge or respect science or the FACTS.

The response by Metallicus shows us the 'immoral' aspect of the issue.

Tory and Phage both are correct.

I find it interesting (and timely) that oil prices are plummeting.....to me, that is an indication that people are waking up. Solar, wind, electricity, etc - and yes, the oil barons are if not running scared, at least realize they need to keep up with the times.

In my tree-hugging, polar-bear-and-dophin-loving opinion,the fossil fuel industry has reached the end of its natural life.....
the self-centered refusal to even listen to the facts and the consensus of science but only to worry about one's own comfort is immoral.

This is our home. It is our only home.
We need to look after it.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

Great thread and I agree with you 100%. I've seen the conspiracy you are eluding to myself. It makes much more reasonable sense. It's easy to follow the money for climate denialism and many of the claims made to debunk climate change can be reversed and apply more appropriately to the denialist arguments.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

The response by jobless1 was a perfect example of the thing you brought up....refusal to acknowledge or respect science or the FACTS.

In my tree-hugging, polar-bear-and-dophin-loving opinion,the fossil fuel industry has reached the end of its natural life.....

This is our home. It is our only home.
We need to look after it.

Yes we need to look after the Earth... er I think, or is it the Earth can look after itself?

However I do need to know what facts you repeatedly refer to... BTW, the polar bears are doing fine so far, if slightly out of sinc with GW WHY, projections, since nobody was really counting the grumpy feckers in the first place.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Facts are only facts when they fit your beliefs and conform to your view of things. If "facts" contradict what you believe, they're false, fake, twisted, manipulated our outright lies.

We human beings don't like to accept uncomfortable information that makes us challenge what we believe.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

Yes, yes & yes!

It's as obvious as global warming itself.

Climate change deniers are definitely driven by political ideology and their blind loyalty to their team.

Much the same way their presidential candidates all talk about what a disaster a Trump presidency would be while in the same breath, pledging to support him if he's nominated.

Go figure!



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy


er I think, or is it the Earth can look after itself?

She can......

as Carlin once said - we will be shaken off like a bad case of fleas.....

nevertheless - we have our progeny to think of. There's no reason to ruin the planet's habitability for humans just because money.




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

In a sense you are right, but don't make the mistake of thinking all the dogmatic thinking is on the right.

The left is just as simple minded (assuming all opposition from the right is simple minded to begin with which is a big assumption).


Liberals scored high in "dogmatism" for agreeing with these three statements:


There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth that the planet is warming and those who are against that obvious truth.



When it comes to stopping global warming, it is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.



A person who thinks primarily of his/her own happiness, and in so doing disregards the health of the environment (for example, trees and other animals), is beneath contempt.


"Those are not just statements about having an environmental position: They are explicitly and overwhelmingly dogmatic statements," the researchers explained. "The subjective tone of those statements is not merely 'I am an environmentalist' but rather 'all people who disagree with me are fools.'"


Dogmatic thinking is more in line with positions related to faith than it is to positions related to scientific reason.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

The science isn't ideologically driven.

The solutions are ideologically driven.

What are YOUR solutions, OP?



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: yesyesyes

In a sense you are right, but don't make the mistake of thinking all the dogmatic thinking is on the right.

The left is just as simple minded (assuming all opposition from the right is simple minded to begin with which is a big assumption).


Liberals scored high in "dogmatism" for agreeing with these three statements:


There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth that the planet is warming and those who are against that obvious truth.



When it comes to stopping global warming, it is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.



A person who thinks primarily of his/her own happiness, and in so doing disregards the health of the environment (for example, trees and other animals), is beneath contempt.


"Those are not just statements about having an environmental position: They are explicitly and overwhelmingly dogmatic statements," the researchers explained. "The subjective tone of those statements is not merely 'I am an environmentalist' but rather 'all people who disagree with me are fools.'"


Dogmatic thinking is more in line with positions related to faith than it is to positions related to scientific reason.


I know dogmatic thinking is not exclusive to one ideology of another, but after spending time in my life talking to "conservatives" from other countries, I have noticed that American conservatives are unique in the way their ideology
relates to money and business. If you talk to European conservatives they will readily admit that the environment is going crazy and rarely argue about the cause, on the contrary, they will argue about the solutions. There is a big difference between the two approaches, one is is straight forward and upfront, while the American conservative will ardently argue about the nature of reality itself as opposed to keeping the debate "sane". The default mode is to say all scientists are secret communists, hired by Al Gore, science is BS anyways, etc,etc,etc... The thing that is very tiresome for me is that this group of people are imaginative enough to create all of these rather involved excuses, but that somehow they are too
indoctrinated to realize that their own opposition to the idea of global warming is much more simple. Again, this extends to the industry itself, which feels it has to promote a great deal of misinformation because lets be HONEST, they want to keep making their BILLIONS. While I am certain the industry knows it is being dishonest, I genuinely don't believe that the average conservative is even aware of the real reasons they resist the notion of global warming, not because it is fake, but because of the implications, implications that may very well collide with the policy and beliefs they hold.

There is a knee jerk reaction I think to play out the scenarios and assume that the liberals want to raise taxes and destroy businesses, but that is not necessarily the case, not for me and many liberals I know. Most young liberals I know are much more interested in promoting a quantum leap in technology, not taxing and growing the government.

I think that the process behind global warming is dangerous to our society because it is a case of completely abandoning reason and purposefully promoting and propagating madness so that everything is so crazy it is impossible to even talk any more because it is straight to cray town.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: yesyesyes

The science isn't ideologically driven.

The solutions are ideologically driven.

What are YOUR solutions, OP?


I agree that the solutions are ideologically driven, and that is natural and healthy. My issue is when we are living in the most powerful world in the country and we are having these quite convoluted and insane debates that are A. not honest
B. questioning the fabric of reality. If conservatives don't like the solutions THAT IS FAIR! But for gods sakes, do we have to start down the rabbit hole of questioning basic climatology, chemistry, oceanography and a whole host of other disciplines that are in a strong consensus? Sometimes I wanna jump run into traffic when I hear some of the mental gymnastics that people go through, when all they have to say is, I DON'T LIKE THE SOLUTIONS YOU GUYS WANNA USE, simple, honest, clean.

As far as my idea, I do not like the idea of carbon taxes because I think that is just opening up a pile of horse$h!t that will make new problems. I would much rather put the effort towards creating new technology, I would not be against diverting the subsidies that fossil fuel companies get now and directing them towards open source inventions.
If I were the Dictator of America I would actually create a sizable bounty/reward for various inventions. Like a 2 billion dollar reward for the person or group who creates zero point energy, or a car that can run on sea water, etc... Too bad I am not an authoritarian in reality, cause I would get this done for a fraction of the price lol



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: yesyesyes

The science isn't ideologically driven.

The solutions are ideologically driven.

What are YOUR solutions, OP?


I agree that the solutions are ideologically driven, and that is natural and healthy. My issue is when we are living in the most powerful world in the country and we are having these quite convoluted and insane debates that are A. not honest
B. questioning the fabric of reality. If conservatives don't like the solutions THAT IS FAIR! But for gods sakes, do we have to start down the rabbit hole of questioning basic climatology, chemistry, oceanography and a whole host of other disciplines that are in a strong consensus? Sometimes I wanna jump run into traffic when I hear some of the mental gymnastics that people go through, when all they have to say is, I DON'T LIKE THE SOLUTIONS YOU GUYS WANNA USE, simple, honest, clean.
l


You may live in the most powerful world in the country...whatever that means

But are you telling the likes of me, (not particularly conservative, and definitely not an American Republican BTW) that I should not question the very basic things that make up the statistics that scientists use to come their conclusions?

Put quite simply, it's the very basic things that I do question, the siting of many of the hundreds of temperature gauges throughout North America is poor. For instance, guages beside air con outlets, vehicles, on the asphalt, reflective heat sinks....the list goes on and on.
So frankly I do have a gripe, and as far as I'm concerned it's a big one, sod all to do with Ideology.
It seems to me that it is you who seek to pull 'GW' into the demographs of American politics where Democrats 'agree' with 'GW' and Republicans don't, or must not. It looks like you want to make you own comfort zone even more comfortable, since you seem to agree with 'GW' rather that have any doubts or questions.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: yesyesyes

The science isn't ideologically driven.

The solutions are ideologically driven.

What are YOUR solutions, OP?


I agree that the solutions are ideologically driven, and that is natural and healthy. My issue is when we are living in the most powerful world in the country and we are having these quite convoluted and insane debates that are A. not honest
B. questioning the fabric of reality. If conservatives don't like the solutions THAT IS FAIR! But for gods sakes, do we have to start down the rabbit hole of questioning basic climatology, chemistry, oceanography and a whole host of other disciplines that are in a strong consensus? Sometimes I wanna jump run into traffic when I hear some of the mental gymnastics that people go through, when all they have to say is, I DON'T LIKE THE SOLUTIONS YOU GUYS WANNA USE, simple, honest, clean.
l


You may live in the most powerful world in the country...whatever that means

But are you telling the likes of me, (not particularly conservative, and definitely not an American Republican BTW) that I should not question the very basic things that make up the statistics that scientists use to come their conclusions?

Put quite simply, it's the very basic things that I do question, the siting of many of the hundreds of temperature gauges throughout North America is poor. For instance, guages beside air con outlets, vehicles, on the asphalt, reflective heat sinks....the list goes on and on.
So frankly I do have a gripe, and as far as I'm concerned it's a big one, sod all to do with Ideology.
It seems to me that it is you who seek to pull 'GW' into the demographs of American politics where Democrats 'agree' with 'GW' and Republicans don't, or must not. It looks like you want to make you own comfort zone even more comfortable, since you seem to agree with 'GW' rather that have any doubts or questions.


Maybe you should first recognize that over 90% of climate scientists believe human industry contributes to global warming.
If you can concede that, maybe you have the intellectual honestly and fortitude to admit that most if not all these people base their opinions upon their life's work. I believe most people are generally good and take pride in being honest and doing good work because passionate work equates to pride and good feelings. Why don't you read about the planet Venus,? You will see that the planet Mercury is much closer to the sun, yet Venus is much hotter. You will then be equipped to understand that this fact is due to the concentrations of green house gases on Venus, particularly CO2. Our planet is governed by the same laws -

The current power structure of the entire global economic system is based upon the sale of petroleum as the US dollar is based upon oil.

If oil were banned somehow the richest and most powerful people in the world would essentially lose their power. This is why it is imperative to sow doubt, it is very simple.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy




Put quite simply, it's the very basic things that I do question, the siting of many of the hundreds of temperature gauges throughout North America is poor.

Actually, there are thousands of temperature stations in North America, with many located in isolated rural locations. These stations show the warming trend, with far more showing all time record high temperatures than all time low temperature records.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join