Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

LOL...I love these appeals to emotion... People aren't denying climate change. IF you REALLY wanted to protect the environment, you wouldn't give two #s about carbon footprint BS...

I don't know of a single person denying that the climate changes. What people are denying is humanity's effect and or ability to change any climate change that comes along.

Fight chemical polution by industry with real consequences. Fight nuclear waste disposal practices... Don't fight SUV usage...

It's ridiculous anthropogenic global warming and climate change is a farce. There is only contrived manipulated data pointing to it being legitimate and the ONLY goal is to gain more control over the populace by the elite.

There is no attempt by AGW alarmists to protect earth as you put it. They only want more control over the populace.

Come with real solutions to real problems and I'm sure many more people will come on board. I, for one, am largely about protecting earth in the long term, but farcical power grabs I will NEVER support.

Jaden

originally posted by: network dude
When I am talked down to, it puts me on the defensive right away. I seriously doubt I am alone in that camp.

You are not. I find many of them to be condescending pricks who remind me of deeply entrenched political partisans who think that their candidate/party can do no wrong.

They are just another form of authoritarian assholes who cannot brook anyone having a mildly skeptical opinion let alone one that disagrees with them on the larger issues. They are their own worst reason why people do not take the issue as seriously as they should.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
We? It's a question from your textbook after all, isn't it?

What 'textbook'?

I'm just here to optimize things, we obviously agree on many issues. But we (yes, we) don't need to talk away all human impacts on the environment to efficiently oppose carbon tax crap and more greedy shemes.

Who said I am doing any of those things?

a reply to: network dude

Man is 100% responsible, more than 100% in most cases. (funny, how do you have more than 100%, is that not the total?)

And you seem to have looked at the picture and didn't bother reading the words.

Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Well, rats. I was so hoping to see that!!

Come on now, we both know it is running around sans pants.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He is certainly not alone.

I am an electrical engineer, top of my class, continuing in Grad school. I have spent 30 years learning electronics on my own before that. I work with physicists and engineers regularly who seem to hold me in high esteem.

And then someone who obviously has never made it through an algebra course unscathed, who probably has lived less time than I have studied, wants to tell me how wrong I am. *sigh*

It's frustrating, and far, far, far too common.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: network dude

Man is 100% responsible, more than 100% in most cases. (funny, how do you have more than 100%, is that not the total?)

And you seem to have looked at the picture and didn't bother reading the words.

Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.

If you look at your graph, you kind of have to realize that before the visual aid existed, there was data. Now that data is displayed in visual format to assist in making a point.

If your graph is not to be taken seriously, then it sure shouldn't be used to make your point. If it is to be taken seriously, then you might want to do a little math. Blue line, man caused, above 150%, blue line, natural, below -50%. So either the graph is wrong, or it's not a very good representation of the message you are trying to get across, or it's possible that man is more than 100% responsible for the current warming. (reminder, I didn't post the graph nor make it)

Here's a good example of the so-called "consensus" of science on climate change and the reaction of other scientists to it. Basically the research suggests that solar cycles have a lot more to do with Earth temperature than whatever we can do to the planet. The research also suggests we're about to get colder--not warmer, so maybe we shouldn't throw away those winter parkas just yet.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
plus - yes, the meat industry is a filthy, disgusting, disaster. The way food is raised is appalling. How do you know I don't already buy locally grown stuff, including grass-fed cattle and natural farm eggs?

Eating meat is not sustainable. Including all the organic, free range stuff. The long version explains it well. Stop making the mistake of thinking you know it all already. No one does.
All i have to know about you is that you eat meat. I dont want to hear anything about greenhouse gases from any carnivore. Im not vegan yet, but its in my future. Is it in yours?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I don't like being a dick - I also don't like being accused of not listening to conspiracy theories - because I do. I just don't buy into all of them - and I want to know WHY some people do. Is that a crime?

Only if you're a dick about it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
The OP asked "why" - it didn't ask "why don't you like this style of asking why?"

I addressed both. Style came last. The OP asked why people don't believe in climate change. People gave you great answers, and even if they made sense you, you ignore and deflect. You change the subject to pollution and conservation instead of accepting that there are good reasons to deny the govts version of events, and their solutions. Its you that does not stay on topic, not me, and not several others. Climate change as its presented to us, pollution, and saving the earth are all seperate, related topics. The OP specifically asks why people dont accept climate change as its presented.
In six words? Because what were told is bogus.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
And given the nastiness of some of the respondents, and their assumptions that I A) don't know anything about anything and 2) am just a liar and 3) just bitch and talk and don't do my part and 4) think I know everything about everything.

They're assholes too. But you were nasty first. They're responding to you. Your delivery inspires hostility.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
We have one planet. We need to take care of it. Just like home maintenance and farm management.
I was in on the last cycle of "environmentalism" - tree huggers, and Greenpeace, and solar energy (my brother is in the solar energy industry as a R&D guy - has been since about 1980).

We do. Anyone who disagrees does not have their head on straight. I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. We only disagree that climate change is all our fault. And we also don't approve of any of the offered solutions, apart from this. This does not solve the problem, but is a good idea nonetheless.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
We care. We were raised to care.
Oh well - so hate me for caring, and for being pissy about people who don't care. I don't care.
And I'm exhausted of trying to bring anything positive or informational to this site and getting attacked by people.

You go about it all wrong. Why are you surprised? We hate your attitude, not your compassion.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
At least the educated millennials are now handed the torch and provided the education to do something about it.

Miseducated.

a reply to: network dude
150% - 50% = 100%

Yes, according to that study, 1 out of 10 studies, human factor offset the natural cooling cycle by 100%

it's not a very good representation of the message you are trying to get across

Message I'm getting across is: Humans are responsible for a substantial amount of global warming. Period.

originally posted by: schuyler
Here's a good example of the so-called "consensus" of science on climate change and the reaction of other scientists to it. Basically the research suggests that solar cycles have a lot more to do with Earth temperature than whatever we can do to the planet. The research also suggests we're about to get colder--not warmer, so maybe we shouldn't throw away those winter parkas just yet.

it's almost as if history repeats itself.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: network dude
150% - 50% = 100%

Yes, according to that study, 1 out of 10 studies, human factor offset the natural cooling cycle by 100%

it's not a very good representation of the message you are trying to get across

Message I'm getting across is: Humans are responsible for a substantial amount of global warming. Period.

if you round the data perhaps, but then the graph says something completely different:


blue line human caused (roughly 165%) Blue line natural (roughly -40%) Outcome= man is 125% responsible for the current warming, others peer reviewed this graph, and allowed it to be used as viable data.

If you draw a line from the 100% mark straight to the right, you notice that almost all the factors of human activity are at or over 100%. Again, I didn't make the graph, or display it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

As an engineer, you are familiar with the term GIGO.

As an engineer myself, my questions would be;
Where is the data being collected
Is the instrumentation being calibrated
If so, who is doing it, and how frequently, and is the variance between cal and non-cal being taken into consideration?

a reply to: schuyler

Basically the research suggests that solar cycles have a lot more to do with Earth temperature than whatever we can do to the planet.

Nope I don't think that's what was suggested.

However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.
mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

a reply to: TheRedneck


Maybe that's actually a problem for any debate? Ever tried to explain something new to a person with a strong and opposite opinion, while he holds a high self-esteem and confuses geology with algebra, engineering or electromechanics?

I'm pretty bright myself according to some other people, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept my irrelevant credentials in science, arts or school for a debate regarding climate change.

What's the point, why can't you folks with high self-esteem just stick to the facts and go for the ball instead? Or do you just try hard to reclaim lost ground in this discussion with big emotions, while appealing to hierarchy?

Frustrating? I think it's rather funny to see you folks getting frustrated about something like this thread. One has to wonder why you do what you do, while emotionalising politics (once again). One really has to, 'cause this emotionalisation of topics is far too common as well...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I deny climate change for a couple reasons...
One is that science is always changing and evolving our ideas of things, remember 30 years ago scientists all thought a global cooling was coming, plus add in the fact that we can barely predict the weather a week from now, how can we predict it decades from now?
Another reason is that I see a lot of hysteria with weather, take the California droughts and rain for instance, people saying "I've never seen it like this!" well when you're a 22yr old college student of course not, but weather comes in cycles, especially in California. We had extreme rain and floods in 1986 followed by several years of drought, then we had extreme floods in the mid 90s, I remember Bill Clinton toured our flooded areas, then we had terrible droughts. While the last 16 years may have been more drought than rain, geological data shows California has had a history of long droughts, some lasting 100 years. Every 10 to 15 years California gets some heavy rain followed by several years o drought and people freak out about it, yet environmentalists have not allowed new dam/reservoir construction in a few decades, yet the population of California has exploded since then.

Climate Change is about control, it's basically earth fascism, as governments seek to control the means of production through regulatory means. I also don't agree with how much climate change activists wish to tax and control things here in the United States. We are one of the cleanest countries on Earth, and we have come a long way to clean up our messes and invest cleaner technologies. Now take a look at China, India, and all of South America and you see toxic chemicals and raw sewage poured into the waterways or onto the ground, you see toxins filling the air, heck china has days where the smog is so thick people can't see 20 ft in front of them. How about we work to clean THOSE countries up because we further regulate and restrict ourselves?

a reply to: network dude

others peer reviewed this graph, and allowed it to be used as viable data.

No, the studies were peer reviewed.

from various peer-reviewed studies (colors).

If you go back to the original link and click it, a page will open in your browser.

Once the page loads you may, if you look for them, see the links to the peer reviewed studies.

If you click on those links pages will open from which you can read the studies.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Frustrating? I think it's rather funny to see you folks getting frustrated about something like this thread. One has to wonder why you do what you do, while emotionalising politics (once again).

I don't particularly find it funny. I'm rather appalled that some people will take the words of one politician as absolute truth to claim that all politicians lie. And if one political party spewed anti-science propaganda for a limited period of time, that that particular propaganda is what sticks in their heads to refute all propaganda (at least what doesn't sound like their already accepted propaganda).

originally posted by: pthena
...to claim that all politicians lie.

Maybe not all, maybe 99.9999999% (repeating of course).

a reply to: pthena

I just finished to look into the first ESA study, which was supplementary supported by the European Commision. I like seeing my tax-money at work and it's a pretty straightforward study with regards to the possibility of noise in the data or further observational errors.

Anyway, I yet have to see any reason to discard their findings at all. And excuse me for bailing out after the first paper, but I was in desperate need for another lecture right now.



Thanks for the link anyways, quite interesting indeed!